Dagmara Weronika Wozniak

The defendants moved for partial summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's personal injury claims arising from his arrest, arguing the plaintiff failed to serve expert reports on the standard of care and causation.

The court dismissed the motion primarily due to its late timing, as it was brought shortly before the scheduled trial.

Additionally, the court noted that expert evidence might not be strictly necessary, as the standard of care could potentially be determined from video evidence and causation could be inferred without scientific proof.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their third-party claim against their former lawyer for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty.

The lawyer had acted for both the appellants and the vendors in a family share purchase transaction involving a promissory note and consulting agreements.

The lawyer failed to recognize the potential conflict of interest, did not advise the appellants to obtain independent legal advice, and failed to explain the full business risks and legal liabilities of the transaction.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the lawyer breached his fiduciary duty and fell below the standard of care, and awarded the appellants damages for the amount they paid to settle the resulting action on the promissory note.

This was a post-trial family costs decision arising from a short marriage involving child support, equalization, and spousal support claims.

The applicant succeeded on all substantive issues and was presumptively entitled to costs, but the court held that the legal fees claimed were grossly disproportionate to the amounts in dispute and the parties' modest means.

Applying the costs factors and emphasizing reasonableness, affordability, and proportionality, the court fixed all-inclusive costs at $25,000, subject to a $2,000 credit for a prior payment by the respondent.

The court declined to direct immediate payment from trust funds pending further submissions concerning former counsel's claimed solicitor's lien.

In a family trial following divorce, the court determined whether the respondent stood in the place of a parent to the applicant's two children from a prior marriage, whether income should be imputed after the respondent quit work and relocated to Poland, and the corollary support and property consequences.

Applying the governing in loco parentis framework, the court found the respondent had formed a new family, sponsored the children as step-sons, and assumed parental obligations.

The court further found the respondent was intentionally unemployed and imputed annual income of $50,000.

Child support of $29,720, an equalization payment of $25,009, and lump sum spousal support of $5,000 were ordered to be paid from trust funds held from the sale of the matrimonial home.

The deceased promised to bequeath his farm and cottage to his common-law wife's grandsons in exchange for their unpaid labour.

He later married the appellant, who claimed dependant's relief against the estate.

The trial judge ordered the properties conveyed to the grandsons and awarded the widow support based on an inflated estate value, refusing to consolidate the proceedings.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals, holding that the promise was to bequeath, not convey, meaning the properties remained in the estate and were subject to the widow's dependant's relief claim under s. 71 of the Succession Law Reform Act to the extent their value exceeded the grandsons' consideration.

The matter was remitted for a new trial on the dependant's relief claim.

Following dismissal of a civil action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The successful defendant sought substantial indemnity costs based on both a prior settlement offer and the plaintiff’s alleged reprehensible conduct.

The court held that elevated costs were warranted due to the plaintiff’s abusive litigation conduct and misuse of the court’s process to harass the defendant.

While acknowledging the plaintiff’s asserted financial hardship, the court emphasized that impecuniosity generally does not shield a litigant from adverse costs.

Applying the overriding principle of reasonableness, the court reduced the amount sought and fixed substantial indemnity costs at $14,000.

The defendants brought a motion to adjourn a scheduled trial in a professional negligence action arising from legal and accounting advice provided in connection with a corporate reorganization that allegedly caused adverse tax consequences.

The defendants argued that the plaintiffs’ damages theory had expanded late in the litigation to include business losses, requiring a responsive expert report and further discovery.

Applying Rule 52.02 and the factors set out in Ariston Realty Corp. v. Elcarim, the court held that proceeding without the defendants’ damages expert would be fundamentally unfair.

A brief adjournment was available and no non-compensable prejudice to the plaintiffs was established.

The interests of justice therefore required that the trial be adjourned.

The plaintiff brought a motion in Small Claims Court seeking to add a corporate party as a defendant or to substitute the named individual defendant with the corporation after the limitation period had expired.

The court considered when the limitation period began in the context of a production contract where payment depended on invoicing.

Applying authority holding that a cause of action arises after a reasonable time to issue and pay an invoice, the court determined the limitation period began after reasonable periods for invoicing and payment had elapsed.

The court further held that the amendment sought was not merely correction of a misnomer but the addition of a new party after expiry of the limitation period.

As the plaintiff had notice of the correct party before the limitation period expired but failed to bring a timely motion, the amendment could not be granted.

The plaintiffs brought an action against the estate of their 'grandfather' figure, Gus Sorkos, seeking to enforce an oral agreement made in 1985.

Under the agreement, the plaintiffs provided unpaid labour to maintain the deceased's farm and cottage properties for over 25 years in exchange for his promise to leave them the properties in his will.

The deceased later changed his will, leaving the properties to others.

The court found the oral agreement was corroborated by third-party witnesses and a prior will.

The court held that the plaintiffs' acts of part performance took the agreement outside the Statute of Frauds and applied the doctrine of proprietary estoppel, finding it would be unconscionable to deny the plaintiffs the properties after they had detrimentally relied on the deceased's promises.

The estate was ordered to convey the properties to the plaintiffs.