Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - ONSCDC

The respondent brought a motion to quash the appellants' appeal, arguing that the appeal should be in the Court of Appeal as it related to an amount over $25,000, that the material filed did not indicate arguable issues, and that the appellants' history of defaults disentitled them to continue.

The court declined to summarily dismiss the appeal.

Finding that the matter in issue exceeded $25,000, the court transferred the case to the Court of Appeal pursuant to section 110(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellants appealed a decision regarding their claims for water leak repairs under a statutory warranty.

The court previously dismissed the appeal but issued this supplementary endorsement to address remaining issues regarding the interpretation of settlement releases, a side letter, and estoppel.

The court held that the releases constituted the entire agreement and that the side letter did not bind the warranty program.

Furthermore, the appellants were estopped from relying on the side letter against the program because the program had reasonably relied on the releases to its detriment by relinquishing security.

The appeal on the remaining issues was dismissed with costs.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) brought a motion for leave to intervene in an appeal from one of its own decisions.

The underlying appeal concerned the Registrar's refusal to register a salesperson under the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act due to a youth offence record, a decision which LAT had overturned.

LAT sought to intervene to make submissions on the admissibility of youth records and conditional discharges.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that LAT had no interest in the subject matter, would not be adversely affected, and possessed no special expertise on the issues of youth records or conditional discharges.

The appellant, who had been detained in a mental health facility for 23 years, appealed an order appointing the Public Guardian and Trustee as his litigation guardian.

The order was made by a judge on his own motion at a Call-Over Court immediately after removing the appellant's solicitor of record.

The appellant was not present and had no actual notice of the intention to make such an appointment.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order, finding that there was no basis in law for the appointment and no evidence before the presiding judge concerning the factors required under the Rules.

The appellants appealed an order of a motions judge awarding costs of an interlocutory injunction motion to the respondents, payable within 30 days.

The appellants argued that, following established principles, costs of an interlocutory injunction should typically be reserved to the trial judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Rule 57.03(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure preserves the motions judge's residual discretion to fix costs payable forthwith.

The court found the motions judge reasonably exercised her discretion based on the appellants' conduct, including unauthorized cashing of cheques and retention of property.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to appeal a $10,000 costs decision made by the motion judge after two actions were consolidated.

The plaintiff argued the costs awarded were too high and that the motion judge failed to adequately consider an offer to settle.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the motion judge exercised his extraordinarily wide discretion properly, the offer to settle was not in the motion record, and there was no conflicting decision or matter of general importance.

Costs of the motion for leave were fixed at $8,500 payable forthwith.

The appellants moved to set aside the Registrar's order dismissing their appeal for delay.

The court applied the three-fold test, finding the appellants failed to demonstrate a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, offered no reasonable explanation for the delay, and had no reasonable chance of success on the merits of the appeal.

The court also noted the appellants' attempts to retroactively dissolve the corporation and close its bank account.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The respondent sought costs of the appeal on a partial indemnity scale in the amount of $14,576.70.

The appellant argued the amount was excessive and suggested $3,500.

Applying the principle that costs must be fair and reasonable and not merely a mathematical calculation, the court fixed the respondent's costs at $7,000 all inclusive on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellant, a shareholder and resident in the respondent housing co-operative, appealed the dismissal of her claim to set aside levies of approximately $900.

She argued there was a reasonable apprehension of bias by the trial judge and a misapprehension of evidence regarding notice of a budget meeting.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's conduct demonstrated patience and an attempt to assist an unrepresented party, and that there was sufficient evidence to support the finding on notice.

The applicant sought judicial review to quash an arbitration award that ordered it to pay the respondent $5 million pursuant to a share purchase agreement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Arbitration Act and the parties' agreement, which explicitly prohibited appeals, barred the application.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to pursue any potential statutory appeal rights within the prescribed time limits.

On the merits, the court found the arbitrator's interpretation of the agreement was not patently unreasonable and the process was procedurally fair.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal an order staying his action for statutory accident benefits pending the return of $10,000 paid under a disputed settlement and the completion of a failed mediation.

The court found no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order, noting that the plaintiff's alleged incapacity at the time of settlement did not prevent mediation or the return of funds.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs due to the plaintiff's impecuniosity.

The applicant, Homeland Oasis Corp., sought an adjournment of its application for judicial review against the Town of Markham to obtain documents.

The court found that arguments regarding the merits of the application and the relevance of the documents were premature.

The court granted the adjournment on the condition that the applicant proceed immediately under section 51 of the Municipal Freedom of Information Act to obtain the documents and report back by October 15, 2004.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal an order staying his action for statutory accident benefits pending the return of $10,000 in settlement monies and a failed mediation.

The plaintiff argued he was incapacitated at the time of the purported settlement.

The court denied leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the order, as incapacity does not prevent mediation or the return of funds.

No costs were awarded due to the plaintiff's impecuniosity.

The appellant appealed a trial decision finding it liable for rent arrears and property damage under a commercial lease.

The respondent cross-appealed the trial judge's decision to discount damages by 50%.

The Divisional Court dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding the trial judge made no palpable and overriding errors in interpreting the lease acknowledgment or assessing the evidence of damage to the premises.

The Government of Ontario applied for judicial review of the Fifth Triennial Report of the Provincial Judges Remuneration Commission, which recommended a 21% salary increase for provincial judges.

The Ontario Conference of Judges brought a separate application for an order in the nature of mandamus requiring the Government to implement the recommendations.

The Divisional Court held that while the Commission's recommendations are subject to judicial review on a standard of patent unreasonableness, the Government's application must be dismissed due to its failure to exhaust internal reconsideration remedies under the Framework Agreement and its excessive delay in bringing the application.

The court granted the Ontario Conference of Judges' application and ordered the Government to implement the recommendations retroactively.

The applicant school board brought a motion to exclude the public, specifically the requester, from the hearing of an application involving sealed materials.

The applicant argued that the requester's presence would render the application moot by revealing the subject matter and that referring to sealed materials without reading them would inhibit counsel's effectiveness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, holding that the normal practice of referring the court to sealed materials without reading them aloud is sufficient and does not inhibit counsel.

The court emphasized that access to the court is a super-ordinate value under s. 135 of the Courts of Justice Act and there was no serious risk of injustice.

The appellant appealed an interlocutory order of a motions judge who gave directions to an Assessment Officer regarding the assessment of costs.

The appellant argued the motions judge was functus officio and could not clarify that the respondents were entitled to non-tariff disbursements after the assessment had already commenced.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the motions judge retained jurisdiction under the Courts of Justice Act and the Rules of Civil Procedure to implement and clarify his costs order, and was not varying it.

The appellant appealed a decision refusing to certify her action as a class proceeding.

She alleged that she and other women were coerced into posing nude or topless for the respondents' newspaper and subjected to inappropriate conduct.

The Divisional Court upheld the motions judge's finding that the claims lacked common issues, as determining liability would require individual assessments of each proposed class member's circumstances.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following the release of reasons on June 10, 2003, the parties reached an agreement on costs.

The court fixed costs in the agreed amount of $3,436.50, payable by the appellant to the successful respondents.

The appellants appealed a Master's order granting summary judgment in favour of the respondent defendants in a multi-vehicle accident case.

The Master had dismissed the claims against the respondents, finding no genuine issue for trial regarding their liability.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that conflicting evidence regarding the number of impacts and the sequence of collisions raised genuine issues for trial that should not be resolved on a summary judgment motion.