Adam C. Pantel

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.

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.