Brett David Moldaver

Following the dismissal of the main appeal, the successful third parties and defendants sought costs on a full indemnity basis, relying on prior releases and indemnity agreements.

The Court of Appeal found the claimed amounts excessive due to duplication of effort among the multiple respondents.

The Court fixed costs in reduced amounts, awarding a total of $72,000 across the various third parties and the defendant law firm.

The appellants commenced an action against their former lawyers for professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duty.

The lawyers brought third party claims against various entities involved in a real estate project.

The appellants and the third parties had previously settled other litigation and exchanged mutual releases containing 'no claims over' provisions.

The motions judge stayed the main action, finding it was an attempt to re-litigate settled matters and would inevitably lead to third party claims precluded by the releases.

The Court of Appeal upheld the stay, except to allow the appellants to amend their statement of claim to assert a claim for an accounting of funds that was not subject to a third party claim.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their action.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's appreciation of the previous Court of Appeal order and upheld the decision to dismiss the action against all defendants, including one who had not formally moved for dismissal, as it was the intent of the motion brought by the other defendants.

The respondent, a partner in an accounting firm, accepted a directorship with a corporate client of the firm.

While he disclosed the directorship and remitted his director's fees to the partnership, he failed to disclose his entitlement to shares and stock options under the client's key employee stock plan.

After the partnership dissolved, the appellants sought an accounting of these benefits.

The Court of Appeal held that the respondent breached his fiduciary duty and his statutory duty of disclosure under the Partnerships Act.

The court found that the shares and options were compensatory benefits derived from a transaction concerning the partnership and from the use of a partnership business connection.

The respondent was ordered to account to his former partners for their proportionate share of the benefits realized.