James R.G. Cook

The appellants sought to amend their statement of claim during a summary judgment motion to raise a new cause of action against opposing counsel.

The motion judge denied leave, finding the amendments disclosed no tenable cause of action and constituted an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, confirming that a lawyer generally owes no duty of care to the clients of opposing counsel.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment dismissing their claim for conveyance of lands and granting the respondent's counterclaim for occupation rent based on unjust enrichment, trespass, and registering a certificate of pending litigation without a reasonable claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's refusal to allow the appellants to discontinue their action on the first day of trial, her decision to allow post-trial pleading amendments, or her assessment of damages for trespass and the aborted sale.

The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from an order setting aside an ex parte Anton Piller order.

The motion judge had set aside the order due to material non-disclosure, including the failure of the plaintiff, a status Indian, to disclose that his undertaking as to damages was unenforceable under s. 89(1) of the Indian Act, and the failure to present a complete factual picture.

The Divisional Court found that while the failure to disclose the Indian Act provision might not alone justify setting aside the order, the overall material non-disclosure regarding the business relationship justified the motion judge's decision.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiffs obtained an ex parte Anton Piller order, which was subsequently set aside by a Superior Court judge.

The plaintiffs sought to appeal the setting aside of the order and brought a motion before a single judge of the Court of Appeal for a stay pending appeal.

The Court of Appeal judge determined that the order setting aside the Anton Piller order was interlocutory, not final, because it did not determine the real matter in dispute between the parties.

Consequently, the appeal belonged in the Divisional Court, and the motion for a stay in the Court of Appeal was dismissed.