D. Williams

The plaintiff brought an action for professional negligence against her former lawyers regarding their handling of a civil action.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment, and the defendants cross-moved for summary judgment and to strike the claim as an abuse of process.

The court dismissed both summary judgment motions due to credibility issues and the need for expert evidence.

The court also dismissed the motion to strike, finding that the action was not a collateral attack on the assessment officer's costs decision, nor did the plaintiff's abandoned appeal of the underlying judgment preclude her from bringing a civil action for solicitor negligence.

The plaintiff sued his former lawyer for negligence, alleging that a 1999 settlement of his accident benefits and tort claims was improvident.

The defendant lawyer brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing the claim was statute-barred.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff knew or ought to have known within five years of the settlement that his income was inadequate to meet his needs, which would give rise to a plausible inference of liability.

The action was dismissed.

The estate trustees brought an application seeking the court's opinion on whether life insurance proceeds payable to private corporations owned by the deceased should be included in the value of the shares for estate administration tax purposes.

The Minister brought a motion to dismiss the application, arguing that s. 29.1 of the Retail Sales Tax Act, incorporated by the Estate Administration Tax Act, prohibits such applications.

The court agreed, finding that the legislative scheme requires taxpayers to follow the statutory assessment, objection, and appeal process rather than seeking advance tax rulings from the court.

The Minister's motion was granted and the application was dismissed.

The self-represented plaintiff commenced an action against the Crown, his former union (AMAPCEO), and the union's legal counsel, alleging conspiracy and misfeasance in public office related to his 2014 termination and subsequent grievance proceedings.

The defendants moved to strike the statement of claim.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action against all defendants.

The court found the claims against the Crown were barred by res judicata from a prior dismissed action and fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of a labour arbitrator.

The claims against the union defendants were similarly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The claims against the union's lawyers were dismissed as statute-barred and because the lawyers owed no duty of care to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sued the vehicle manufacturer and dealer.

In a second action, the plaintiffs sued their insurer for failing to preserve the vehicle.

The insurer issued a third-party claim against the plaintiffs' lawyers, alleging they were negligent in failing to preserve the evidence.

The third-party lawyers moved to strike the claim.

The court granted the motion, holding that any negligence by the lawyers fell within the scope of their agency and would be attributable to the plaintiffs, making the third-party claim unnecessary.