Giuseppe Falconeri

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of J.A. Ramsay J. dated July 4, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party fixed at $4,320.

The plaintiff brought an action for solicitor's negligence against his former lawyer, alleging the lawyer negligently advised him to settle his statutory accident benefits claim for an inadequate amount and failed to investigate a potential catastrophic impairment designation.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the lawyer's investigation and negotiation of the settlement met the standard of a reasonably competent lawyer given the plaintiff's need for immediate funds, poor compliance with treatment, and the risk of benefits termination.

The court also found the plaintiff failed to prove that he would have rejected the settlement or achieved a better outcome had a catastrophic impairment assessment been recommended.

The applicant, a party under disability who suffered catastrophic injuries in a motor vehicle accident, sought court approval of a $900,000 settlement for statutory accident benefits.

The court approved the settlement quantum as reasonable and in the applicant's best interests.

However, the court declined to approve the proposed distribution, which included a structured settlement and payments to a former solicitor and a litigation loan company, citing a lack of updated medical evidence and concerns over the loan and former solicitor's actions.

The matter was referred to the Public Guardian and Trustee for a report and recommendations.

The defendants, former legal counsel for the plaintiff, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's professional negligence action.

The plaintiff alleged the defendants breached the standard of care during an underlying personal injury trial by failing to advise him about an updated loss of income report and abandoning his future loss of income claim without instructions.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial.

The evidence demonstrated the plaintiff was aware of the supplementary report, understood the significant risks of proceeding to trial, and insisted on proceeding despite his lawyers' advice to settle or dismiss the action without costs.

The court determined costs following a summary judgment in favour of a defendant.

The successful defendant sought substantial indemnity costs, while the plaintiffs argued for a lower partial indemnity award.

The court found that while some aspects of the plaintiffs' position had no chance of success, their argument regarding the nature of the retainer required judicial interpretation and was not unreasonable.

Consequently, costs were awarded on a partial indemnity scale to the successful defendant, payable by the plaintiffs, in the amount of $25,200.16 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The defendant solicitor brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' professional negligence claim against him.

The plaintiffs alleged the solicitor failed to advise them of a conflict of interest, failed to commence a negligence action against their former counsel, and failed to advise them of the applicable limitation period.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the solicitor's retainer was limited to the assessment of the former counsel's accounts, the plaintiffs were informed of the conflict, and the solicitor fulfilled his duty by advising the plaintiffs to seek independent legal advice regarding any potential negligence claims.

The plaintiffs brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to review an order of a single judge of the Divisional Court that required them to pay $20,000 as security for costs.

The motion was brought well past the four-day time limit prescribed by Rule 61.16(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Divisional Court declined to extend the time for the motion, noting the plaintiffs' repeated failure to meet deadlines, the lack of evidence explaining the delay, and the prejudice to the defendant.

The motion was dismissed with costs.

The plaintiffs appealed a Divisional Court decision that restored a master's order requiring them to post security for costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming that the standard of review on an appeal from a master is the same as from a judge, as set out in Housen v. Nikolaisen.

The court found no basis to interfere with the master's analysis of the evidence or application of principles regarding security for costs.