In Sandu v. Fairmont Hotels, released
September 11, 2015, the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed that s.
19(1.2)(d) of Ontario's Courts of Justice Act must be
interpreted fairly to give the Divisional Court jurisdiction over
an appeal of a Superior Court order "dismissing a claim for an
amount that is more than [$50,000] and in respect of which the
judge or jury indicates that if the claim had been allowed the
amount awarded would have been not more than [$50,000]". The
Court held that this provision applied to this case, where the
trial judge dismissed a defamation claim but held that she would
have assessed damages at $25,000. The appellant argued that the
trial judge's failure to explicitly consider claims for
aggravated or punitive damages meant that she could bring the
appeal to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal disagreed:
 The trial judge
dismissed the appellant's claim for defamation but held that if
she had found the claim had merit, "In all the circumstances,
I would assess her damages at $25,000." The moving party
submits that, accordingly, s. 19(1.2)(d) of the Courts of
Justice Act applies. Section 19(1.2)(d) states that the
Divisional Court has jurisdiction where the Superior Court makes an
dismissing a claim for an amount that
is more than [$50,000] and in respect of which the judge or jury
indicates that if the claim had been allowed the amount awarded
would have been not more than [$50,000].
 The responding party
submits that the trial judge's award would have been for
general damages only and that the trial judge did not turn her mind
to what the appropriate award would have been for aggravated and
punitive damages. He submits that we cannot infer she would have
awarded nothing for these heads of damages and that the total of
the amounts awarded may have exceeded $50,000.
 We disagree. The
trial judge assessed damages globally. Her award was for the entire
claim. The applicable section is s. 19(1.2)(d) of the Courts of
Justice Act. Although the trial judge dismissed the claim for
an amount that was more than $50,000, she indicated that if the
claim had been allowed the amount awarded would have been
 The motion to quash
is allowed and the appeal is transferred to the Divisional Court.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
It's not often that our little blog intersects with such titanic struggles as the U.S. presidential race – and by using the term "titanic" I certainly don't mean to suggest that anything disastrous is in the future.
J.J. v. C.C., is an interesting case in which the court held that an automotive garage owes a duty to minor children to secure the vehicles on the premises by locking the cars and safely storing the car keys...
In Irwin v. Alberta Veterinary Medical Association, 2015 ABCA 396, the Alberta Court of Appeal found that the "ABVMA" failed to afford procedural fairness to a veterinarian undergoing an incapacity assessment.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).