Charles Sinclair

The plaintiffs brought an action alleging they were victims of an advance fee loan scam perpetrated by the main defendant with the assistance of several lawyers and law firms.

Three groups of defendant lawyers brought motions to strike the statement of claim.

The court struck the negligence claims against one lawyer and his firm, finding opposing counsel owes no duty of care to the opposite party.

The court struck the claims against two other law firms but allowed the fraud claim against their partner to proceed, subject to the plaintiffs providing better particulars.

Finally, the court dismissed the claim against a third lawyer, finding it was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as the plaintiffs had sufficient knowledge of the alleged misconduct more than two years before commencing the action.

The appellant failed to appear for the hearing of the appeal after its counsel was removed from the record.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the respondent.

The appellant appealed an order terminating her membership and occupancy rights in a housing co-operative.

She argued there was a lack of procedural fairness before the Board and that the motions judge erred by applying a standard of patent unreasonableness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of procedural unfairness and concluding that, despite misstating the standard of review, the motions judge had actually applied the correct reasonableness standard and properly found the Board's decision to be reasonable.

The applicant alleged discrimination in housing on multiple grounds after being advised she was 'over-housed' under the Social Housing Reform Act regulations and required to apply for a transfer to maintain rent-geared-to-income assistance.

At the hearing, the applicant conceded that the alleged harassment was on 'humanitarian grounds' rather than Code grounds.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the Region of Halton and the related allegations against the Co-op.

The applicant then withdrew the remaining allegations on consent.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment order, arguing the motion judge lacked jurisdiction due to the absence of pleadings in the motion record and issues with the style of cause.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the pleadings were before the motion judge and the style of cause challenge could not be raised for the first time on appeal.

The appellant brought an action against the lawyer who represented his child's mother in a custody dispute, alleging the lawyer committed criminal acts including perjury and fraud.

The motion judge struck the statement of claim as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his claims against a solicitor and other defendants, as well as the award of substantial indemnity costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the trial judge's findings of fact and credibility regarding the solicitor.

The court also rejected the claim against the other defendants, noting that any vendor's lien was extinguished when the bank exercised its security.

The award of substantial indemnity costs was upheld due to the appellant's attack on the respondent's character.

The appellant appealed an order granting summary judgment and dismissing the claim against the respondents.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge's analysis that there was no genuine issue for trial on the question of malice.

The appeal was dismissed.