Charles Haworth

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his professional negligence claim against a tax lawyer.

The appellant had retained the tax lawyer to advise on tax implications of a matrimonial settlement involving the purchase of his ex-spouse's shares in a family corporation.

The tax lawyer provided advice on two approaches: a direct purchase (which would trigger significant personal tax liability) and a redemption approach (which would avoid the tax hit).

The appellant ultimately settled using the direct purchase approach with a negotiated "tax discount" rather than the recommended redemption approach.

The appellant subsequently incurred approximately $1.3 million in tax liability and sued for negligence.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the claim, finding the tax advice was correct.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that partial summary judgment was inappropriate in these circumstances and that serious issues remained regarding the lawyer's professional obligations to ensure advice was communicated to and understood by the client.

The plaintiff, Norman Wong, sought costs following a successful motion for leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation and to amend the statement of claim.

The court awarded costs to the plaintiff, but significantly reduced the amount sought and ordered separate payments from the Sereda defendants ($2,000) and the Smith defendants ($6,000), payable in the cause, rather than on a joint and several basis.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs from the date of an offer to settle, finding the offer did not fully address the relief granted.

The appellant, a major language services company, appealed the dismissal of its defamation action against the respondents under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The respondents had posted comments on an online bulletin board criticizing the appellant's business practices in the context of a federal election candidate's suitability for office.

The motion judge dismissed the action, finding that the posts related to a matter of public interest and that the public interest in protecting freedom of expression outweighed the public interest in permitting the claim to proceed.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal and refused leave to appeal the costs award of $30,000 on a full indemnity basis.

The applicant sought an interlocutory injunction to extend the voting period in the respondent political party's leadership contest, alleging that he and others had not received the necessary verification numbers to vote electronically.

The court dismissed the application on two grounds.

First, the applicant failed to exhaust the internal dispute resolution mechanisms provided in the party's election rules before seeking court intervention.

Second, applying the tripartite test for an interlocutory injunction, the court found that the balance of convenience heavily favoured the respondents, as extending the voting period at the eleventh hour would prejudice the tens of thousands of members who had already voted and disrupt the scheduled leadership convention.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking leave to amend the statement of claim and leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) against two properties, alleging fraudulent conveyances and/or resulting/constructive trusts.

The court granted leave to amend the statement of claim, finding no uncompensable prejudice.

For the CPL, the court applied the tests for fraudulent conveyances and found a prima facie case of fraud and "badges of fraud" for the Spillsbury property.

For the Wispi property, the court found a triable issue regarding a resulting or constructive trust based on the source of funds.

Both requests for CPL were granted.

The appellant clinic and respondent chiropractor had a business arrangement that broke down over a fee-splitting dispute.

The respondent abruptly left the clinic, leading to claims and counterclaims.

The motion judge granted summary judgment to the respondent for loss of income.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred by granting summary judgment in the face of conflicting evidence without explaining how the conflict was resolved or deploying the fact-finding powers under Rule 20.04.

The judgment was set aside and the parties were left to pursue their claims.

The defendants brought a motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation action arising from a blog post made during a federal election.

The blog post criticized a political candidate's association with the plaintiff corporation.

The court found the expression related to a matter of public interest.

The plaintiff failed to establish that its claim had substantial merit, that the defendants had no valid defence, or that the harm suffered outweighed the public interest in protecting the expression.

The action was dismissed with full indemnity costs awarded to the defendants.

The plaintiff clinic sued a chiropractor and her husband for removing patient files and loss of income.

The chiropractor counterclaimed for unpaid fees and loss of income resulting from the disruption of her practice.

At the summary judgment hearing, the clinic abandoned its main claim.

The court found that the clinic breached its business arrangement with the chiropractor, causing her a loss of income.

The court awarded the chiropractor damages for loss of income and unpaid fees, plus costs, against the clinic, but dismissed the counterclaim against the clinic's principal personally.