The appellant sued his former spouse's divorce lawyer, alleging the lawyer maliciously advised the spouse to fabricate criminal charges against him to gain an advantage in matrimonial litigation.
The motion judge struck the statement of claim under Rule 21 for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the pleaded facts were capable of supporting claims for intentional torts such as false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and civil conspiracy, which are not defeated by the rule that a lawyer owes no duty of care to an opposing party.
