Adam C. Pantel

The plaintiff brought a solicitor’s negligence action alleging that his former lawyer failed to properly advise him of settlement offers and improperly accepted a settlement without instructions in litigation arising from a mortgage dispute.

The court conducted a credibility assessment regarding whether the plaintiff was present during a court‑brokered settlement discussion and whether the solicitor acted on valid instructions when accepting a later settlement.

The court found that the plaintiff had been present and had rejected the earlier settlement offer despite legal advice to accept it.

The court further found that the solicitor accepted the later settlement based on clear instructions before the plaintiff attempted to withdraw them.

In any event, the plaintiff failed to establish any compensable loss resulting from the alleged negligence.

The applicants, who were former counsel to the respondent in a dismissed medical malpractice action, brought an application under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act to have the respondent declared a vexatious litigant.

Following the dismissal of the underlying action, the respondent had commenced three separate lawsuits against the applicants, all of which were dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court found that the respondent persistently attempted to re-litigate determined issues, failed to pay costs awards, and engaged in harassing and manipulative behaviour towards the court and counsel.

The application was granted, and the respondent was prohibited from instituting or continuing any proceedings without leave of the court.

The appellant, an unsuccessful plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident action, sued the opposing counsel for intrusion upon seclusion, breach of privacy, and negligence.

She alleged the lawyers improperly disclosed her medical and academic records.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the claim.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal, holding that the appellant waived her privacy interests by putting her medical and academic status in issue in the underlying action.

The court also confirmed that opposing counsel owed no duty of care to the appellant.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order dismissing their motion for summary judgment.

They argued that the action was barred by a release executed by the parties in 2008.

The motion judge had found that the parties did not contemplate the specific claims when executing the release.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision regarding the scope of the release, the application of the incorrect summary judgment test, and the threshold for unconscionability.

The court noted the proposed appeal involves important issues concerning the ability of parties to settle uncontemplated claims.

Following dismissal of an action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, the successful defendant sought costs of the motion and the action.

The defendant requested $18,764.26 on a full indemnity basis, citing the extensive volume of materials filed by the self‑represented plaintiff and relying on prior authority addressing cost awards in similar circumstances.

The plaintiff filed communications but did not provide formal written costs submissions.

Applying the factors in Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court awarded the defendant reduced costs of $12,500 all‑inclusive.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay that amount to the defendant.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of an action alleging professional negligence, breach of contract, and misrepresentation arising from accounting advice regarding a corporate “butterfly transaction.” The defendants argued that a broadly worded mutual release executed during settlement of a prior fee dispute barred the action under the doctrine of res judicata.

The court held that the release applied only to claims existing at the time of settlement and did not bar claims based on negligence that the plaintiffs discovered years later.

The court further held that the action raised multiple triable issues, including when the accountant became aware of the alleged error and whether the plaintiffs incurred significant tax exposure as a result of the advice.

Summary judgment was therefore inappropriate and the action was permitted to proceed to trial.

The plaintiffs sold their pharmacy business and retained the defendant law firm to act on the transaction.

Following the closing, the plaintiffs sued the law firm for professional negligence, alleging failures to advise regarding the termination of a consulting agreement, the non-assignment of a software lease, and the withholding of over $1 million in trust funds without earning interest.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the defendant solicitors fell below the reasonable standard of care in all three areas by failing to provide adequate advice and communicate effectively with their client.

Judgment was awarded to the plaintiffs for $41,770.10.

In mortgage enforcement litigation, the defendants advanced a counterclaim alleging their former solicitor improperly retained mortgage proceeds and should be responsible for repayment of the loan.

The moving parties sought dismissal of the counterclaim on the basis that identical claims had previously been struck without leave to amend in earlier proceedings.

The court held that the prior decision constituted a final determination on the merits and therefore barred the renewed claim under the doctrine of res judicata.

Although the original mortgage enforcement action had been administratively dismissed and recommenced, that procedural history did not reopen the already-determined claims against the solicitor.

The counterclaim was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding it negligent and jointly and severally liable with a co-defendant for damages related to truck engine repairs.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge erred by permitting the respondent to advance a negligence claim on the first day of trial without notice, and by finding negligence without evidence establishing the standard of care or how the appellant breached it.

The court also found errors in the trial judge's assessment of damages and the imposition of joint and several liability.

The judgment against the appellant was set aside and the claims against it were dismissed.

Following a family law trial where the applicant obtained judgment in his favour, the court addressed unresolved issues regarding costs years after the trial due to former counsel’s failure to take out the formal judgment or submit a bill of costs.

The court examined whether a solicitor’s late lump‑sum account without dockets or contemporaneous records complied with s. 2(3) of the Solicitors Act and whether such costs could be fixed or recovered.

The judge found the nearly five‑year delay in rendering an account, combined with the absence of supporting documentation, rendered the account unreasonable and prejudicial.

Exercising discretion under the Courts of Justice Act and Family Law Rules, the court fixed partial indemnity costs for earlier counsel’s properly documented accounts but refused any costs for trial counsel.

Following a successful motion by the defendant to enforce a settlement agreement dismissing the action without costs, the court determined the appropriate costs of the motion.

The court found the motion had been unnecessary because the plaintiff provided no affidavit evidence explaining or disputing the settlement offer made by counsel.

While the defendant sought higher costs, the court declined to award costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

Instead, costs were fixed on a partial indemnity scale.

The court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant $2,700 all-inclusive.

The defendant brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement and dismiss the plaintiff’s solicitor’s negligence action without costs.

The defendant argued that the plaintiff’s counsel had authority to offer a settlement dismissing the action without costs and that the defendant accepted the offer, but the plaintiff later refused to execute the consent dismissal.

The court applied the principles governing settlements reached by counsel and found that the plaintiff’s lawyer had authority to bind the client and that all essential terms of the settlement had been agreed upon.

The plaintiff provided no affidavit evidence disputing the instructions given to counsel or explaining why the settlement should not be enforced.

The court concluded that a binding settlement existed and ordered the action dismissed in accordance with the settlement.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment granted in favour of the respondent by the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found no reason to disagree with the motion judge's analyses or conclusions, holding that it was an appropriate case for summary judgment.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant sued the supervising duty counsel at a family court, along with the court and its employees, claiming damages because he was prevented from filing a motion without notice.

The action against the court and employees was previously dismissed.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action against the duty counsel, finding she merely explained the court staff's refusal to accept the motion.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing there was no basis for legal liability.