3 total
Successful defendant in professional negligence action awarded $74,461.33 in partial indemnity costs against self-represented plaintiff.
The defendant sought partial indemnity costs of $80,111.33 following the dismissal of the plaintiff's professional negligence action.
The self-represented plaintiff objected to the lack of detail and alleged duplication of time by the defendant's counsel.
The court found the time spent generally reasonable but made a modest reduction of $5,000 in fees due to the plaintiff's concerns.
The court awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs of $74,461.33, noting the plaintiff's $3 million claim was entirely dismissed, the action involved serious allegations against the defendant's professional reputation, and the plaintiff's conduct lengthened the proceeding.
The court dismissed a professional negligence claim against a criminal appellate lawyer as statute-barred and unproven.
The plaintiff, Themistocles Kyriakopoulos, sued his former criminal appeal lawyer, Gregory Lafontaine, for professional negligence, claiming $3 million in damages.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's handling of his criminal appeal fell below the standard of care, leading to the upholding of his conviction for drug trafficking.
The court dismissed the action, primarily finding it statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as the plaintiff knew or ought to have known of the alleged negligence more than two years before commencing the action.
Additionally, the court found that the plaintiff failed to establish solicitor's negligence without expert evidence and did not prove causation or damages.
Appeal allowed in part; construction damage award reduced by 10% and pre-judgment interest disallowed.
The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent damages for the cost of repairing her coach house, which was damaged by vibrations from the appellants' construction project.
The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings on liability, concluding that the evidence supported a change in construction methods and causation.
However, the Court reduced the damage award by 10 per cent to account for savings if the appellants had performed the repairs themselves and for pre-existing defects.
The Court also disallowed pre-judgment interest on the damages to prevent over-compensating the respondent, as the damages were assessed based on the cost of repairs at the date of trial.