James Lane

The Member was convicted of two counts of assault against a former mentee and direct report, arising from non-consensual touching at a fundraising event.

The Professional Conduct Committee alleged this conduct breached Rule 201.1 of the CPA Ontario Code of Professional Conduct.

The Discipline Committee found the allegations established and that the conduct constituted professional misconduct.

The Member was suspended for 9 months, permanently restricted from acting as a formal CPA Ontario mentor, fined $10,000, and ordered to pay costs of $5,700.

The defendants appealed a summary judgment that awarded the plaintiff damages for defamation ($75,000 general, $25,000 punitive).

The plaintiff cross-appealed the motion judge's refusal to grant a permanent injunction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal.

The court found no error in the summary judgment or the assessment of damages, and declined to admit fresh evidence from either party, reiterating that ineffective assistance of counsel in civil matters is typically addressed through a negligence action, not as a ground for appeal.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment in a defamation action where the plaintiff was awarded general and punitive damages, the parties could not agree on costs.

The plaintiff sought $50,000 on a substantial indemnity basis, arguing the defendants' conduct was reprehensible.

The court found the defendants' conduct in the litigation did not rise to the egregious level required for elevated costs and noted the plaintiff's claimed time was excessive.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs on a partial indemnity basis in the all-inclusive amount of $23,000.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a defamation action against the defendants for publishing articles on a website and sending WhatsApp messages containing false allegations of financial impropriety and misappropriation of funds.

The court found the case appropriate for summary judgment and held that the articles were defamatory.

The defendants failed to establish any defences, including justification, responsible communication, qualified privilege, or fair comment, due to a complete lack of evidence supporting the allegations and a reckless failure to verify them.

The court awarded the plaintiff $75,000 in general damages and $25,000 in punitive damages, but declined to grant a permanent injunction.

The Member, a limited licence holder, faced allegations of professional misconduct for making disparaging remarks, using obscene gestures, and filing vexatious complaints against other professionals.

The Member admitted to the allegations in an Agreed Statement of Facts, acknowledging his conduct was disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional, and constituted harassment.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a three-month licence suspension, publication of the decision with names, and a requirement to complete the National Professional Practice Examination.

The member and his firm faced professional discipline for signing and sealing deficient shop drawings and calculations for structural support beams, and for undertaking structural engineering work outside their competence.

The member admitted to the allegations of professional misconduct.

The Discipline Committee accepted the admission and found the member guilty.

In determining the penalty, the Committee considered the member's cooperation, out-of-pocket remediation of the errors, and changes to his practice.

The Committee ordered a reprimand, a restriction prohibiting the member from practicing structural engineering (with limited exceptions for platforms), and a limited practice review, but declined to impose a licence suspension.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision.

The Court of Appeal found that there was a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding whether the respondent employer was entitled to direct the appellant to take his vacation during the notice period.

The employer's vacation policy was ambiguous, meaning the issue could not be resolved on summary judgment before discoveries.

The appeal was allowed and the summary judgment was set aside.

The appellant sued the respondent accountant and his firms for negligent misrepresentation, alleging she lost approximately $825,000 invested in a company based on his advice.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding no accountant-client relationship existed when the initial investment was structured, and that the appellant did not rely on the accountant's representations when making further investments despite knowing the company was in financial difficulty.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the action but allowed the appeal on costs on consent, reducing the trial costs awarded to the respondents.

The appellant auditor appealed a trial judgment finding it liable for professional negligence, challenging the scope of duty, causation, contributory negligence, and damages calculation.

The respondent cross-appealed regarding dividends, prejudgment interest, and inevitable losses.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding no palpable error in the trial judge's findings of fact and concluding that the trial judge correctly determined the scope of the auditor's duty to warn the respondent of significant weaknesses in its Loans Department.