James Morton

Following a successful motion for summary judgment, the defendants sought costs on a full indemnity basis, citing the plaintiff's unreasonable conduct and late withdrawal of serious allegations.

The plaintiff argued that full indemnity costs were not justified and challenged the time spent by the defendants.

The court found that the defendants' offer to settle, which proposed dismissing the action without costs, was a valid compromise.

Costs were awarded to the defendants on a partial indemnity basis up to the date of the offer and on a substantial indemnity basis thereafter.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for negligence, breach of Charter rights, and defamation arising from his suspension from practice.

The plaintiff argued that the defendants exceeded their statutory authority by demanding client files without reasonable suspicion on a file-by-file basis.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, finding that the plaintiff's claims constituted an impermissible collateral attack on unappealed Law Society Tribunal proceedings, and that the defendants were protected by statutory immunity under s. 9 of the Law Society Act as there was no evidence of bad faith.

Following dismissal of a negligence action against a lawyer, the successful defendant sought partial indemnity costs of approximately $74,000.

The plaintiffs challenged the quantum, arguing that certain hours were excessive, that some work should have been done by junior counsel, and that an expert report not used at trial should not be compensable.

The court applied the discretionary factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing fairness and reasonableness in light of the issues and expectations of the parties.

While the hourly rates and expert report were found reasonable, some time entries and disbursements were reduced.

The court awarded reduced costs inclusive of disbursements and tax.

The plaintiffs alleged negligence against a lawyer who discharged their mortgages without authorization, claiming they had never met the lawyer or signed discharge authorizations.

The lawyer maintained that the plaintiffs attended his office, produced identification, and executed written authorizations.

The court evaluated conflicting testimony, contemporaneous documentation, and the lawyer’s standard practice for client identification.

Finding the lawyer’s evidence more credible and supported by photocopies of the plaintiffs’ identification and witnessed signatures, the court concluded that the plaintiffs had likely attended and authorized the discharges or, alternatively, that the lawyer had exercised reasonable care consistent with the applicable standard.

The plaintiffs also failed to prove the alleged outstanding mortgage advances.

The negligence claim was dismissed.

The individual defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim against him personally for negligent misrepresentation regarding a home theatre installation.

The court found no evidence that the individual defendant made representations in his personal capacity or that any representations were knowingly false.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, and the claim against the individual defendant was dismissed, with costs fixed at $10,000.

The plaintiff moved to set aside a Registrar’s order dismissing a civil action for delay arising from alleged workplace sexual assault and related constructive dismissal claims.

The court applied the contextual analysis described in Reid v Dow Corning Corp, considering explanation for litigation delay, inadvertence in missing the deadline to set the action down for trial, promptness of the motion, and prejudice to the defendants.

Although the action progressed slowly and counsel cited workload pressures, the court found there was no intentional delay and that the plaintiff had taken steps toward advancing the litigation.

The motion to set aside the dismissal was brought promptly and the defendants failed to demonstrate significant prejudice.

The court set aside the dismissal order and permitted the action and a related crossclaim to proceed.

The Association of Justices of the Peace of Ontario brought an application seeking a declaration regarding the appropriate salary indexing adjustment for the 2008-2009 salary year.

The court had previously adjourned the application to allow the government time to respond to the Remuneration Commission's recommendation.

After the government provided its response, the court dismissed the application, holding that the appropriate remedy was now judicial review of the government's decision based on the standard of simple rationality.