Diana Romano Reid

The plaintiffs brought a motion to remove the defendant's lawyers of record, AMR LLP, due to a conflict of interest.

A law clerk recently hired by AMR LLP had worked closely with the plaintiff for many years at the plaintiffs' counsel's firm.

The court found that while no confidential information was exchanged, the law clerk was a likely material witness regarding the plaintiff's pre-accident condition and employability.

Applying the Essa factors, the court concluded that the proper administration of justice required the removal of the defendant's counsel to avoid the risk of tainted evidence and cross-examination of their own employee.

The defendants, D. Robert Findlay and Findlay Personal Injury Lawyers, sought an order to vary a previous court order and unseal a file related to the plaintiff's accident benefits settlement.

The plaintiff, Jarrod Seth Van Every, had commenced an action against the defendants alleging negligent representation in handling his accident benefits claim.

The defendants argued that the sealed materials were relevant to their defence and counterclaim, which alleged that the plaintiff's losses were caused by an improvident settlement by his subsequent counsel.

The court found that the defendants had standing under Rule 38.11(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure as "persons affected by the judgment" because the sealed materials directly impacted their economic interests in the ongoing litigation.

The motion to unseal the file and produce the affidavit material was granted.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment dismissing his personal injury action following a motor vehicle accident.

The trial judge had found the appellant failed to prove his injuries or causation, making it unnecessary to determine the statutory threshold under the Insurance Act.

The Court of Appeal raised the issue of jurisdiction on its own motion and concluded that, because the judgment contained no declaratory relief regarding the threshold, the appeal and cross-appeal properly lay to the Divisional Court under s. 19(1.2) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The proceedings were transferred accordingly.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim on a Rule 21 motion, the successful defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The self-represented plaintiff failed to deliver costs submissions despite extensions granted by the court.

The court held that there was no basis for substantial indemnity costs and exercised its discretion under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Balancing fairness, compensation, and access to justice, the court reduced the defendants’ requested costs and fixed partial indemnity costs payable by the plaintiff.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his action under Rule 21 for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge's analysis that the claim was utterly unmeritorious and found no error.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to each appearing respondent.

The appellant appealed a Master's decision dismissing her application to amend her statement of claim to include derivative claims under the Family Law Act after the limitation period had expired.

The Master had found the proposed amendment constituted a new cause of action.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, applying the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Cahoon v. Franks.

The Court held that the factual situation entitling the appellant to damages was the respondents' negligence in the motor vehicle accident, and adding derivative claims based on her husband's injuries did not create a new cause of action.