Adam Pantel

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 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 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 plaintiff sued her former family law lawyer for negligence, alleging the lawyer failed to present crucial evidence in a child custody jurisdiction motion and a property dispute.

The defendant lawyer brought a motion for summary judgment.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, finding no genuine issue for trial because the lawyer did not cause the plaintiff's losses.

The court noted the plaintiff had opportunities to present the evidence herself after discharging the lawyer, and the underlying decisions were based on adverse credibility findings against the plaintiff rather than a lack of evidence.

The moving party, a former non-equity partner at the responding party law firm, brought a motion as an intervenor seeking an order under Rule 45.02 for the payment into court of a specific fund.

The fund in question was a contingency fee payable to the law firm by a client, which the moving party claimed he was entitled to a portion of based on an employment and fee-splitting agreement.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party's claim was essentially for damages for breach of contract rather than a legal right to a specific fund, and that the balance of convenience did not favour granting the order.

The plaintiff moved to set aside a registrar's order dismissing his professional negligence action for delay and sought leave to amend his statement of claim to add his former lawyers as defendants.

The court dismissed the motion to set aside the dismissal, finding the plaintiff made a deliberate decision not to pursue the litigation and failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice.

The court also dismissed the motion to add the former lawyers as defendants, concluding that the proposed claims were either statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 or legally untenable.

The plaintiff moved to set aside a registrar's order dismissing his solicitor negligence action for delay and sought leave to amend his statement of claim to add his former lawyer and law firm as defendants.

The court dismissed the motion to set aside the dismissal, finding the plaintiff failed to adequately explain the delay, failed to prove inadvertence, and failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice to the defendant.

The court also dismissed the motion to add the former lawyer as a defendant, concluding that the proposed claims were either untenable or barred by the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

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.

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.