R. D. Reilly

The plaintiffs and defendants both appealed a Small Claims Court decision regarding a residential tenancy dispute.

The parties lived in shared accommodation with ambiguous living arrangements that changed over time through verbal agreements.

The trial judge found that the plaintiff breached the lease terms and awarded the defendants $1,188.69.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's findings of fact and confirmed the judgment, dismissing all other claims.

The plaintiffs and defendants both appealed a Small Claims Court decision regarding a residential tenancy dispute.

The parties shared a residential premise with ambiguous living arrangements that changed over time through verbal agreements.

The trial judge found that the plaintiff breached the lease terms and awarded the defendants $1,188.69.

On appeal, the Superior Court of Justice found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's findings of fact and held that the law was correctly applied.

The appeal was dismissed and the trial judgment was confirmed.

The applicant father appealed a decision dismissing his motion for the appointment of private counsel for the parties' two children.

The father had previously sought to change the time-sharing arrangement after his retirement, but withdrew the claim after the Office of the Children's Lawyer presented the children's wishes to maintain the current schedule.

The appeal court found that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error in determining that appointing private counsel was unnecessary, given the children had been represented two years prior and were doing well.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment by the defendants, the court determined the issue of costs based on written submissions.

The court found the defendants' submissions reasonable and ordered the self-represented plaintiff to pay costs on a partial indemnity basis fixed at $30,073.01, inclusive of HST and disbursements.

This ruling addresses the costs of an application where both parties acted in good faith and presented meritorious positions.

The court found that both were well-represented and neither suffered unexpected prejudice from the court's decision.

Consequently, the court directed that each party shall bear their own costs of the application.

This ruling on application addresses the equalization of net family properties and spousal support following the separation of a couple married for nearly 30 years.

The court determined the separation date as 2010, despite conflicting evidence, and proceeded to divide assets to ensure financial security for both parties.

The applicant was awarded the matrimonial home, a global support payment, and an equal share of proceeds from a Portuguese property, while the respondent retained an income-generating property.

The self-represented plaintiff brought an action for solicitor negligence against her former lawyer and his firm, alleging negligence in their handling of her various claims arising from a 2006 motor vehicle accident.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff's claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act because she knew of the alleged negligence when she terminated the retainer in 2009, well beyond the two-year limitation period.

The court also found no genuine issue requiring a trial on the merits, concluding the defendants acted with due diligence.

Following a trial where the plaintiff's claims for damages were entirely dismissed, the successful defendant sought partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff argued that each party should bear its own costs.

The court found the defendant's claim for costs to be fair and reasonable, ordering the plaintiff to pay $165,630.83 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

Following a successful motion for injunctive relief, the plaintiff sought costs.

The court reviewed the written submissions and awarded the plaintiff costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $7,556.91, inclusive of HST and disbursements, which included costs for a prior attendance.

The plaintiff, Willowbrook Nurseries Inc., sued the Royal Bank of Canada for breach of contract and bad faith, alleging the bank failed to provide reasonable notice of changes to its lending arrangements and restricted financing.

Willowbrook claimed an overarching agreement for continued credit, including temporary accommodation requests (TARs), which RBC abruptly ceased.

The court found that the relationship was contractual, not fiduciary, and while RBC's actions might have been financially unwise, they were not in bad faith.

The bank exercised its contractual entitlements and provided reasonable notice for Willowbrook to seek alternative financing.

The plaintiff's claims for specific, goodwill, productivity, general, and punitive damages were dismissed.

This appeal concerned a child protection application where the trial judge granted Crown Wardship of child A.V. to the Children's Aid Society without access.

The biological mother and maternal grandparents appealed, raising constitutional questions under section 15 of the Charter and seeking a new trial or placement of the child with the maternal grandparents.

The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's findings of fact or correctness in law, and no violation of constitutional rights, upholding the Crown Wardship based on the child's best interests.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion for injunctive relief and a maintenance reserve, the court determined the issue of costs.

The defendants were entirely successful on the contentious issues and were awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court fixed the costs at $25,000, inclusive of disbursements and taxes, payable forthwith.

Following the settlement of a construction dispute for $58,000, the plaintiffs sought costs and prejudgment interest.

The court reviewed the plaintiffs' bill of costs, noting the settlement was slightly more favourable than their pre-trial offer.

Applying the factors under the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Courts of Justice Act, the court awarded the plaintiffs $48,000 in costs on a partial indemnity basis, reducing the claimed amount to account for work related to a failed arbitration and proportionality to the settlement.

Prejudgment interest was also awarded at a rate of 4.8%, totaling $23,156.78.

In an addendum to a trial judgment, the court corrected a calculation error in the damages award based on the jury's decision.

With the agreement of counsel, the court recalculated the award by applying a 20 percent reduction for contributory negligence to the pecuniary damages, and applying the statutory deductible followed by the contributory negligence reduction to the non-pecuniary damages.

The total judgment was amended to $136,483.20.

The plaintiffs, shareholders in an aircraft charter business, brought a motion for interim relief pending trial of their oppression action.

They sought an injunction restraining the defendants from leasing aircraft below market rates, an order establishing a maintenance reserve for a specific aircraft, and monthly production of financial and flight records.

The court dismissed the requests for injunctive relief and the maintenance reserve, finding the plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured allowing the corporations to make business decisions pending trial.

On consent, the court ordered quarterly production of financial and flight records.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment for damages arising from the defendants' breach of a real estate purchase agreement.

The defendants failed to close the transaction to purchase the plaintiff's property for $310,000.

The plaintiff relisted the property and eventually sold it for $260,000.

The court found that the plaintiff took reasonable steps to mitigate her damages and awarded $59,135.72, representing the $50,000 difference in purchase price plus carrying costs, legal fees for the aborted sale, and prejudgment interest.

Following a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident where the plaintiff was awarded $160,480 after a 20% deduction for contributory negligence, the court determined the costs of the action.

One of the plaintiffs abandoned her claim on the eve of trial.

The court declined to award costs directly against the abandoning plaintiff but reduced the successful plaintiff's costs to reflect the shared representation.

The successful plaintiff was awarded $72,000 in costs on a partial indemnity basis, with a deduction for an insurance premium disbursement.

The appellants appealed a trial decision finding they breached a home renovation contract with the respondent contractor.

The dispute arose when the appellants refused to pay a full $20,000 progress invoice, citing concerns over incomplete work and the statutory 10% holdback requirement under the Construction Lien Act.

The contractor subsequently stopped work, registered a lien, and terminated the contract.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors in concluding the appellants had run out of money and acted unreasonably.

The Court held that the contractor breached the contract by terminating it precipitously, and ordered a new trial on damages.

The appellant contractor's construction lien expired after it failed to set the action down for trial within two years.

The respondent owner brought a motion without notice under section 46 of the Construction Lien Act, resulting in the dismissal of the entire action, including the appellant's breach of contract claims.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that while the lien claims were properly dismissed, the contract claims should not have been summarily dismissed without notice.

The court varied the order to allow the breach of contract claims to proceed, noting that the Act does not mandate the dismissal of non-lien claims upon the expiry of a lien.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision that set aside a Registrar's order dismissing the respondents' action for delay.

The motion judge had set aside the dismissal because he found the respondents were not given notice of the dismissal proceeding.

On appeal, fresh evidence showed notice was sent but returned because the respondents had moved and failed to update their address with the court.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the respondents could not use their failure to update their address as an excuse, and reinstated the Registrar's order dismissing the action for delay.