P.J. Flynn

The respondent husband sought leave to appeal an interlocutory procedural order relating to filing, questioning, and refusals to answer undertakings in a family proceeding.

The Divisional Court considered the criteria for granting leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court held that the requirements for leave were not satisfied because the prior consent order cited did not constitute a conflicting decision and the proposed appeal did not raise issues of public importance.

The matter was characterized as a procedural dispute between family litigants.

Leave to appeal was therefore denied and the motion dismissed.

A subcontractor commenced an action for payment relating to framing work on a church construction project, while the general contractor counterclaimed for the cost of completing unfinished work and remedying deficiencies after the subcontractor abandoned the project.

The dispute centered on whether soffit installation fell within the subcontractor’s contractual scope and whether the subcontractor was responsible for correcting roof drainage problems.

The court held that the subcontract language requiring the subcontractor to install “all wood” and the “roof system” included soffit work, allowing those completion costs to be set off.

However, the court found insufficient evidence to attribute the roof drainage defect solely to the subcontractor and ordered that the remediation costs be shared equally.

Judgment was granted in favour of the contractor for the net completion costs.

The plaintiffs sought damages for wrongful dismissal, unpaid commissions, and punitive damages arising from the termination of a sales and marketing role in condominium developments.

The court found that the plaintiff was an employee rather than an independent contractor, notwithstanding the use of corporate invoices for payment.

After being terminated without notice, the plaintiff was entitled to commissions on completed condominium sales, damages for five months’ reasonable notice, and punitive damages due to the defendant’s post‑termination conduct, including intimidation and a baseless counterclaim alleging theft of documents.

The court rejected the defence based on the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act because it was not pleaded and because the plaintiff acted as a full‑time employee.

Judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant’s counterclaim was dismissed.

Applicants sought dependant’s relief under Part V of the Succession Law Reform Act, alleging that a deceased father failed to meet child support obligations and made no provision for his adult son.

The court examined the separation agreement, prior support orders, and the son’s circumstances at the time of the father’s death.

Evidence showed the support obligation had been reduced to zero while the father received public assistance and that the son was no longer a child entitled to support.

The court also found that certain insurance and investment proceeds passed outside the estate to a designated beneficiary and were not available for recovery.

The applicants failed to establish entitlement to dependant’s relief from the estate.

Following an earlier decision striking the plaintiffs’ statement of claim and dismissing the action against Crown defendants, the defendants sought costs of $2,700 for a half‑day motion.

The court acknowledged that the time spent and hourly rate claimed by Crown counsel were reasonable and that costs would normally be awarded to the successful party.

However, the plaintiffs, who were self‑represented, demonstrated that their correspondence and settlement offers regarding costs had gone unanswered by Crown counsel.

The court held that the Crown’s failure to respond to the litigants’ communications was discourteous and inconsistent with the state’s obligation to treat citizens with respect.

In the circumstances, the court exercised its discretion to deny the requested costs despite the defendants’ success on the underlying motion.

A corporate defendant sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from an interlocutory order granting an injunction freezing proceeds from the sale of certain properties.

The moving party argued the motion judge erred regarding res judicata and the existence of a serious issue to be tried, and that the order improperly restrained funds without determining a proprietary interest.

The court applied Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and held that the moving party failed to establish either a conflicting decision or a good reason to doubt the correctness of the order combined with a matter of sufficient public importance.

The dispute was fact-driven and concerned only the interests of the litigants.

Leave to appeal was therefore refused.

Self-represented plaintiffs commenced a lengthy civil action alleging fraud, negligence, misrepresentation, discrimination, and conspiracy against numerous defendants including court officials and the Crown following disputes arising from the assessment of legal fees related to earlier litigation.

The Crown defendants moved to strike the statement of claim.

The court held the pleading disclosed no reasonable cause of action, contained speculation and bald allegations, and failed to plead material facts supporting negligent misrepresentation, negligence, or Charter discrimination claims.

The court further held that the Toronto Assessment Office was not a suable entity and that the action against the Crown was a nullity because the plaintiffs failed to provide the mandatory notice required under the Proceedings Against the Crown Act before commencing the action.

The moving parties sought an order requiring the responding party to post $35,000 as security for costs in a construction lien proceeding.

The court found that the threshold for a security for costs order under Rule 56.01 was met because a previous costs award remained unpaid and there was reason to believe the responding party lacked sufficient Ontario assets to satisfy future costs.

The responding party failed to demonstrate impecuniosity with detailed financial disclosure or that the action would be halted if security were ordered.

The court held that hardship alone was insufficient and that robust evidence of inability to raise funds was required.

Security for costs was ordered in the amount sought.

The successful respondents sought partial indemnity costs for four appeals totaling $10,495.51.

The appellants requested no costs or a reduced amount of $3,000.

Noting that the appellants did not complain about the rate or time spent, and that their own costs outline was similar, the court found the respondents' request met the Boucher test and awarded the full amount claimed.