11 total
Action against police for killing pit bulls and damaging property during execution of arrest warrant dismissed.
The plaintiff brought an action against the Ottawa Police Services Board and two unnamed officers for trespass, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and misfeasance in public office after police entered her townhouse to execute an arrest warrant for her former boyfriend.
During the entry, the police shot and killed the plaintiff's two pit bulls and caused significant property damage.
The court dismissed the action, finding that the police entered under a valid warrant and authorization, and were protected from liability by section 25 of the Criminal Code because they acted on reasonable grounds and used no more force than necessary in a high-risk situation.
Real estate brokerage awarded commission after vendor and purchaser conspired to change purchaser's name to avoid payment.
The plaintiff real estate brokerage brought an action against the vendor, its principal, and the purchaser for an unpaid real estate commission.
The vendor and purchaser had entered into an agreement of purchase and sale during the listing period, which was later revived and closed under a different corporate purchaser name at the vendor's insistence to avoid paying the commission.
The court found that the commission was earned and payable under the listing agreement.
The court also held the vendor's principal and the corporate purchaser liable for intentional interference with contractual relations for their bad faith conduct in attempting to circumvent the commission.
Costs of $2,000 awarded to landlord following divided success on motion for contempt and possession.
The landlord brought a motion for a contempt order, vacant possession, and arrears of rent against the tenant.
The court previously granted vacant possession and arrears but dismissed the contempt request.
In this costs decision, the court noted divided success but awarded costs to the landlord, fixing them at $2,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes.
Costs awarded to successful respondents after self-represented appellant breached agreement not to seek costs.
Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal, the parties initially agreed not to seek costs.
However, the self-represented appellant breached this agreement by filing costs submissions and seeking costs in his favour.
Consequently, the successful respondents sought and were awarded their costs on a partial indemnity scale, fixed at $5,000 for the University of Ottawa defendants and $1,000 for Dr. Weitzman.
Contempt motion against tenant adjourned; court affirms jurisdiction to order eviction but finds no contempt.
The landlord brought a motion for a contempt order against the tenant for failing to vacate the residential premises as ordered by the Divisional Court after the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order was quashed.
The tenant argued he was not in contempt because he was exercising his right under s. 74(11) of the Residential Tenancies Act to void the eviction by paying arrears, and that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to order eviction.
The court held that it had jurisdiction under s. 210(5) of the Act and Rule 60.05 to order the tenant to vacate when disposing of an appeal.
However, the court declined to find the tenant in contempt, as he had acted on legal advice regarding the jurisdictional issue.
The contempt motion was adjourned.
Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, delay, and being frivolous and vexatious; appellant declared vexatious litigant.
The self-represented appellant appealed a Superior Court order striking his statement of claim without leave to amend.
The respondents moved to dismiss the appeal on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, delay, and being frivolous and vexatious.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the claim exceeded $50,000, the appellant failed to perfect the appeal on time, and the appeal was entirely without merit and an abuse of process.
The court also declared the appellant a vexatious litigant, prohibiting further proceedings without leave.
Costs of $5,177.60 awarded to successful municipality against self-represented litigant after 20% documentation reduction.
Following the dismissal of three proceedings brought by the self-represented respondent, the applicant municipality sought costs of $6,472.
The respondent argued costs should be waived due to his limited resources and the public interest nature of the issues.
The court rejected the respondent's arguments, noting he had been warned about the merits of the proceedings but proceeded anyway.
The court reduced the applicant's claimed costs by 20% due to issues with their documentation, fixing costs at $5,177.60.
Frivolous residential tenancy appeal quashed and tenants declared vexatious litigants for pattern of rent-free living.
The tenants appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating their tenancy for non-payment of rent.
The landlords brought a motion to quash the appeal and declare the tenants vexatious litigants, presenting evidence that the tenants had a pattern of filing frivolous appeals to live rent-free.
The Divisional Court found the appeal to be a 'scam' devoid of merit, quashed the appeal, declared the tenants vexatious litigants requiring leave for future appeals from the Board, and awarded the landlords costs on a full indemnity basis.
Motion to dismiss judicial review denied; cross-motion to admit affidavits granted due to lack of transcript.
The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the applicants' judicial review application for delay.
The applicants brought a cross-motion to admit five affidavits as evidence on the judicial review hearing, arguing they were necessary because no official transcript or audio recording of the tribunal proceedings existed.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to dismiss, finding the delay was not deliberate or highly prejudicial.
The court granted the cross-motion, applying an exception to the general rule against admitting affidavits on judicial review, as the applicants would otherwise be unable to effectively challenge the tribunal's findings of fact and credibility.
Leave to appeal dismissal of anti-suit injunction and stay of Ontario counterclaims denied.
The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order dismissing their motion for an anti-suit injunction and staying their counterclaims in Ontario pending the resolution of parallel proceedings in Delaware and Illinois.
The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision.
The motion judge correctly applied the Amchem test and concluded that the foreign forums were more appropriate, noting that the jurisdiction clause in the parties' agreement was not exclusive.
Crown Briefs in civil actions require a screening mechanism before production; Charter-tainted statements are protected.
The plaintiff sued the defendant doctor for sexual assault.
Criminal charges against the defendant were stayed, but during the criminal proceedings, the defendant received a Crown Disclosure Brief, which included a statement he made to police that was ruled inadmissible due to a s. 10(b) Charter violation.
In the civil action, the plaintiff sought production of the Crown Brief.
The Divisional Court held that while the existence of the Crown Brief must be disclosed, its contents should not be produced until the Attorney General and relevant police service are notified and either consent or a court orders production.
Furthermore, the defendant's Charter-infringing statement to police was protected from production in the civil proceeding.
