The appellant sued her former family law lawyer for negligence, alleging he failed to adequately protect her equalization claim against her husband, who was a known flight risk.
The trial judge dismissed the action, finding that while the lawyer breached the standard of care in some respects, his recommendation to settle was not an 'egregious error' and his delays did not cause the appellant's loss.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, holding that the trial judge erred by applying the 'egregious error' test instead of the standard of reasonableness, and by using a segmented time grid analysis that failed to assess the lawyer's overall failure to advance the case to trial.
