Alfonso Campos Reales

The applicant, Francisco Calles, sought to void a contingency fee agreement (CFRA) with the respondent law firm, Yormak & Associates, and to recover fees paid, requesting the court to fix or assess the fees.

The respondent, Steven Yormak, brought a motion to strike portions of the applicant's materials and a counter-application for disclosure of the applicant's new counsel's file.

The court voided the CFRA due to numerous deficiencies under the Solicitors Act and its Regulations, finding it unfair and unreasonable.

The respondent's motion to strike was partially granted, and the counter-application was dismissed as a "fishing expedition" seeking privileged material.

The court fixed the respondent's fees on a quantum meruit basis at $62,150, reducing the claimed hours, and ordered the respondent to remit $6,290.62 to the applicant.

This endorsement addresses two motions for leave to appeal before the Divisional Court.

The Plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal a "set aside" order was dismissed with costs awarded to the Defendants.

Concurrently, the Defendants' motion for leave to appeal earlier certification decisions was dismissed without costs, having become moot.

The plaintiff in a medical malpractice action moved to consolidate his action with two other related actions: a motor vehicle accident (MVA) action in which he was the defendant, and a long-term disability (LTD) action brought by the MVA plaintiff.

The court applied the test for consolidation under Rule 6.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Finding significant overlap between the MVA and LTD actions, the court ordered them to be tried together.

However, due to the early procedural stage of the malpractice action and the prejudice delay would cause to the MVA plaintiff's income loss claim under the Insurance Act, the court declined to strictly consolidate the malpractice action, ordering it to be tried with the others only if it is ready in time.

The plaintiffs brought motions to certify three proposed class actions against Aviva Insurance for the blanket denial of coverage for COVID-19-related business loss claims.

The claims focused on 'restricted access' and 'negative publicity' coverage provisions in Aviva's standard-form policies.

The court found that the requirements for certification under the Class Proceedings Act were met, noting the commonality of the standard-form policies and the identical denial letters.

The two Lerners Actions were certified, and the Nordik Action was conditionally certified pending a motion regarding the representative plaintiff.

In a negligence appeal concerning injuries suffered after minors stole an unlocked vehicle from a commercial garage, the Court addressed whether the garage owner owed a duty of care to the injured passenger.

The majority held that while theft risk was foreseeable, the record did not establish reasonable foreseeability of personal injury from unsafe operation of the stolen vehicle in the specific circumstances.

Applying Anns/Cooper, the majority found the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie duty of care and dismissed the claim against the garage owner.

The dissent would have upheld the existing duty category for foreseeable physical injury and maintained liability findings.

The proposed plaintiff sought pre-action disclosure of the Ontario Provincial Police investigative file relating to a serious motor vehicle collision in order to identify potential defendants and assess liability before commencing a civil action.

The Ministry resisted disclosure on the basis that information had been withheld under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The court held that although the urgent motion procedure under the Rules of Civil Procedure was not available, equitable pre-action discovery in the nature of a Norwich order remained available.

Given the statutory obligation under the Highway Traffic Act to exchange identifying information following a collision and the potential relevance of the police file to determining liability and identifying parties, the court found the requested disclosure necessary and appropriate.

Production of the file was ordered subject to protections allowing redaction of unrelated information and safeguarding law enforcement interests.