A. Pantel

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.

The plaintiff seller brought an action against the defendant buyer for forfeiture of a $250,000 deposit and damages after a failed commercial real estate transaction.

The buyer refused to close, alleging the seller failed to rectify an illegal third-floor residential conversion and a resulting city work order.

The buyer also brought a third-party claim against its real estate lawyer for professional negligence.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the buyer intentionally orchestrated the work order for leverage and failed to properly requisition the issue within the contractual deadline.

The court held the transaction was not unconscionable, denied relief from forfeiture, awarded the seller the deposit plus $6,645 in out-of-pocket damages, and dismissed the third-party claim against the lawyer, finding he met the standard of a reasonably prudent solicitor.

The self-represented defendant requested a decision on her request to bring a stand-alone recusal motion and an emergency case management conference.

The court directed that the recusal issues be brought forward in response to the pending motion for an interlocutory injunction, dismissing the request for a stand-alone motion.

The request for an emergency case management conference was also denied as no urgent issue was raised.

The moving parties (third parties in the main action) sought costs against the responding party (defendant/third party plaintiff) after the responding party discontinued the third party claim.

During the litigation, the responding party had made an assignment in bankruptcy.

The trustee in bankruptcy subsequently sold and assigned the third party claim back to the responding party, who then filed a Notice of Discontinuance.

The court held that because no judgment or costs order was made prior to the bankruptcy, the costs were not a provable debt in bankruptcy.

The court further held that the assignment of the claim by the trustee did not change the character of the matter or revive the costs liability.

The motion for costs was dismissed.

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.