Brett Hughes

The remaining defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for abuse of process, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to immediately disclose a settlement agreement with a co-defendant.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the settling defendant did not switch sides or alter the adversarial orientation of the parties.

The settlement merely let a minor player out of the lawsuit in exchange for further documentary disclosure, which did not change the litigation landscape entirely.

The defendant moved to permanently stay the action as an abuse of process, arguing the plaintiffs failed to immediately disclose settlement and cooperation agreements reached with co-defendants.

The court found that the agreements fundamentally changed the litigation landscape from an adversarial to a cooperative relationship.

Applying the principles from Aecon and Handley Estate, the court held that the failure to immediately disclose these agreements constituted an abuse of process.

The action was permanently stayed against the moving defendant.

The plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action brought a motion to compel answers to questions refused at an examination for discovery.

The refused questions sought production of an external law firm's unredacted fee accounts, investigation file, and unredacted board meeting minutes.

The defendants claimed solicitor-client privilege over the documents.

The court found that the law firm was retained to provide legal advice, making the investigation file privileged.

The court also held that the defendants did not waive privilege by producing the investigation report or by referring to the investigation in the plaintiff's termination letter.

The motion was dismissed.

The plaintiff, a shareholder of a corporation that previously lost a mortgage enforcement action, brought a new action against the mortgagee and the mortgagee's lawyers alleging fraud, negligence, and breach of contract.

The defendants moved to strike the claim.

The court granted the motions, finding that the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action, as the plaintiff had no privity of contract, the lawyers owed no duty of care to a litigation adversary, and the claims were barred by the rule in Foss v. Harbottle.

The court also found the action to be an abuse of process and frivolous and vexatious, as it attempted to re-litigate issues already decided in the prior mortgage action.

The defendant sought partial indemnity costs of $80,111.33 following the dismissal of the plaintiff's professional negligence action.

The self-represented plaintiff objected to the lack of detail and alleged duplication of time by the defendant's counsel.

The court found the time spent generally reasonable but made a modest reduction of $5,000 in fees due to the plaintiff's concerns.

The court awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs of $74,461.33, noting the plaintiff's $3 million claim was entirely dismissed, the action involved serious allegations against the defendant's professional reputation, and the plaintiff's conduct lengthened the proceeding.

The plaintiff, Themistocles Kyriakopoulos, sued his former criminal appeal lawyer, Gregory Lafontaine, for professional negligence, claiming $3 million in damages.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's handling of his criminal appeal fell below the standard of care, leading to the upholding of his conviction for drug trafficking.

The court dismissed the action, primarily finding it statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as the plaintiff knew or ought to have known of the alleged negligence more than two years before commencing the action.

Additionally, the court found that the plaintiff failed to establish solicitor's negligence without expert evidence and did not prove causation or damages.

The applicant, Brian Hamm, sought an order preventing the respondent, Gordon R. Baker, a lawyer, from disclosing the contents of a legal file to an intervenor in an ongoing litigation.

Hamm claimed that he and Baker were in a solicitor-client relationship, or a 'near client' relationship, and that Baker owed him a duty of confidentiality.

The court applied the Jeffers indicia to determine if a reasonable person would conclude a solicitor-client relationship existed.

The court found that Baker acted solely as corporate counsel for Northern Superior Industries Ltd. and for another investor, and that Hamm understood Baker was not representing his personal interests.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed from a motion judge's order dismissing its motion for leave to amend the statement of claim to add a lawyer as a party defendant.

The motion judge found that the claim could not succeed on the merits and was statute-barred.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal on the basis that the claim was statute-barred, as the appellant had discovered or should have discovered its potential claim by 2014, more than two years before the motion to amend was brought in October 2016.