Adam C. Pantel

The defendant lawyer requested the dismissal of the plaintiff's action as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01.

The plaintiff, who was self-represented, sought damages arising from the defendant's representation of the mother of the plaintiff's children in family law disputes.

The court rejected the request for dismissal, noting that while lawyers generally owe no duty to opposing parties, the allegations might amount to a legal wrong outside the protections afforded to lawyers.

The court noted the defendant could still seek early dismissal under Rule 20 or Rule 21.

The decision grants summary judgment to the plaintiffs, who were defrauded of $2.65 million in a real estate investment scheme involving a solicitor’s law firm, his office manager/mother, and an in-house mortgage broker.

The court finds the solicitor and his firm liable for breach of trust, negligence, and fiduciary duty, and holds the property company and its principals jointly and severally liable.

The court awards compensatory and punitive damages, as well as substantial indemnity costs.

This decision addresses a Rule 2.1.01 motion concerning multiple proceedings commenced by the plaintiff, Aynoush Biniaz-Sarabi, arising from a motor vehicle accident and subsequent denial of accident benefits.

The court reviews the history of related litigation, including prior decisions by the Licence Appeal Tribunal and Divisional Court, and considers whether the current and related actions are frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

Several actions are dismissed under Rule 2.1.01, and the court declines to declare the plaintiff a vexatious litigant without a formal motion.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed a civil action brought by Stephen Massey, purportedly also on behalf of his two daughters (J.M. and C.M.), against 31 defendants including the Children's Aid Society, the Office of the Children's Lawyer, various lawyers, and his ex-wife.

The claim, a collateral attack on prior family law proceedings that concluded in 2016, alleged child abuse and professional misconduct.

The court dismissed the action against Mr. Massey with prejudice due to his failure to attend case conferences, non-compliance with court orders, and the action being frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, largely barred by the limitation period.

The claim on behalf of J.M. and C.M. was dismissed without prejudice, acknowledging potential discoverability issues and the uncertainty of their authorization.

The court imposed a leave requirement for Mr. Massey to initiate future proceedings against these defendants and awarded costs against him.

The plaintiffs, developers of two condominium buildings, sought an extension of time to serve statements of claim against the respective condominium corporations for unpaid promissory notes related to guest suites.

The statements of claim were issued in March 2020 but not served until July 2022, past the extended deadline of March 2021.

The delay was attributed to counsel's inadvertence.

The defendants opposed, arguing abandonment and prejudice due to witness unavailability and changes in unit ownership.

The court, applying the principles from Chiarelli v Wiens, found that the plaintiffs intended to pursue the actions and that the delay was due to inadvertence.

The court rejected the defendants' claims of prejudice, noting their early notice of the claims and that any alleged prejudice was not caused by the delay or was speculative.

The motions for extension of time were granted.

The appellants, lien claimants in a condominium development bankruptcy, appealed a motion judge's decision regarding the quantum of their priority under section 78(2) of the Construction Act.

They argued for a 20% priority due to two building mortgages, while the receiver contended it was a single 10% holdback deficiency.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, finding the statutory interpretation issue important.

On the merits, the Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's interpretation, affirming that the priority is limited to the single 10% holdback deficiency, regardless of the number of building mortgages.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff sued her former lawyer for negligence regarding a construction contract.

The plaintiff's new lawyer accepted an offer to settle the action for a dismissal without costs.

The plaintiff subsequently filed a Notice of Intention to Act in Person and claimed she never instructed her lawyer to settle.

The defendant moved to enforce the settlement under Rule 49.09.

The court granted the motion, finding no basis to refuse enforcement, as the agreement was clear and entered into by counsel with ostensible authority.

The respondent law firm brought a motion to quash a Registrar's Order for Delivery and Assessment obtained by its former client.

The client had certified in a requisition that he had requested the firm's accounts but had not received them.

The court found that the firm had in fact delivered all accounts to the client at or about the dates they were rendered.

Because the requisition was factually incorrect, the court quashed the Registrar's Order, without prejudice to the client bringing an Application for an order directing the assessment of the accounts under section 4 of the Solicitors Act.

The applicant, a declared vexatious litigant, sought leave under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act to continue an action against his former lawyer for alleged negligence in civil and criminal matters.

The court applied the test for granting leave, which requires the applicant to show the proceeding is not an abuse of process and has reasonable grounds.

The court found that the alleged negligence in the civil matter did not alter the fact that the underlying action was an abuse of process, and the alleged failure to retain an expert in the criminal matter would not have changed the conviction.

The application for leave was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment seeking specific performance of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a lakefront property.

The transaction failed to close after disputes arose regarding the vendor's non-resident tax holdback and the lack of legal access over a private road.

The court found that because neither party was ready to close on the agreed date, time was no longer of the essence and the contract remained valid.

Given the unique characteristics of the property, the court ordered specific performance, set a new closing date, and directed a mini-trial for the remaining damages claims.

Three lien claimants brought a motion in a receivership proceeding to determine the proper interpretation of s. 78(2) of the Construction Act regarding priority over building mortgages.

The claimants argued they were entitled to priority for the holdback deficiency against each building mortgage individually, effectively multiplying their priority amount.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the lien claimants' priority is limited to the extent of the single deficiency in the owner's holdback over all building mortgages combined, as multiplying the priority would be contrary to the statutory scheme and unfairly prejudice subsequent encumbrancers.

A case conference was held to manage multiple related actions.

The court noted that Commercial List matters were being traversed to the regular Civil list.

Directions were given for the filing of outstanding pleadings, setting aside defaults by consent, and establishing a mutually convenient discovery schedule with a target completion date of December 31, 2022.

The court also provided instructions for scheduling anticipated motions, including a potential Mareva injunction and a motion to join the trials.

A case conference was held regarding five related actions, three of which were on the Commercial List and two were regular civil matters.

Counsel agreed that the actions should be case managed together for efficiency.

The judge agreed to act as the case management judge for all five cases, which will require transferring the Commercial List actions to regular civil actions.

The plaintiff, Jinzhong Miao, sued his lawyer, Dheeraj Bhatia, and his firm, Madamser Law, for negligence and breach of contract concerning a real estate transaction.

The plaintiff sought to extricate himself from an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a residential property, alleging the lawyer provided negligent advice by assuring him he could exit the deal.

The court found that the lawyer did not provide such a guarantee and that the plaintiff's credibility was compromised by his admitted misrepresentations about his financial circumstances.

The court concluded that the lawyer's conduct did not fall below the required standard of care and was not causative of any loss to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's claim was dismissed.

The self-represented plaintiff commenced an action against the lawyers and a consultant acting for a corporation in which he is a minority shareholder, alleging negligence and enabling oppression.

The court initiated a Rule 2.1 review to determine if the claim was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court found that while the plaintiff may eventually have a viable claim depending on the outcome of his main oppression action, the current claim against the corporation's professionals was premature and an abuse of process.

The action was dismissed without prejudice, with leave required to recommence after the main action concludes.

The defendants were successful on a motion to regularize the self-represented plaintiff's statement of claim.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the defendants, noting that the plaintiff's combative approach and refusal to accept constructive direction necessitated the motion and the participation of all defense counsel.

The Plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment.

Prior to the hearing, the parties advised the court that the action had tentatively settled and requested an adjournment of the motion sine die.

The court granted the adjournment on consent, noting that if the settlement was not completed, the parties would need to obtain a new date and timetable at Civil Practice Court.

The judge was not seized of the matter, and no costs were awarded for the attendance.

The applicant lawyer sought an order declaring the self-represented respondent a vexatious litigant under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The respondent had commenced four previous actions against the applicant, all of which were summarily dismissed as frivolous or vexatious, and had recently commenced a fifth.

The court found the respondent's actions against the applicant to be vexatious but declined to make a global order, limiting the restriction to proceedings against the applicant so as not to foreclose her ability to pursue other unrelated claims regarding alleged domestic and sexual abuse.

The defendants brought a motion to regularize the self-represented plaintiff's Statement of Claim.

The plaintiff had issued a single claim but served different, cut-and-pasted versions on each individual defendant.

The court ordered the plaintiff to prepare, issue, and serve a single 'Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim' containing all allegations against all defendants in compliance with the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Additionally, exercising its inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process, the court prohibited the plaintiff from initiating any further proceedings or motions without leave of the case management judge.

The appellants appealed an order striking out their action under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as an abuse of process.

The appellants had previously failed to set aside a default judgment obtained against them and subsequently brought a new action claiming damages and alleging fraud regarding the service of the original claim.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the new action was an attempt to relitigate issues already decided and dismissed the appeal.