Karen Zvulony

The applicant, Serenity Valley P. Lawn Management Inc., sought to assess the legal accounts of the respondent law firm, Lenczner Slaght Royce Smith Griffin LLP, under sections 3 or 9 of the Solicitors Act.

Serenity, as a third-party payor, argued for an assessment based on "special circumstances," including alleged pressure to pay and insufficient fee details.

The court dismissed the application, ruling that Serenity was not the law firm's client (precluding assessment under s. 3) and failed to demonstrate "special circumstances" under s. 9.

The court emphasized that Serenity was a sophisticated party, represented by counsel, who had contractually agreed to pay reasonable legal fees and signed a release, and did not protest the fees or reserve rights despite receiving detailed information.

The court also found no evidence that the legal fees were excessive given the complexity of the enforcement litigation.

The respondents moved under section 7(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside or vary an order of the motion judge dismissing their motion for security for costs under Rule 61.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellants sought security for costs of both the appeal and the trial costs already awarded.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no error in law or principle.

The court clarified that when considering security for costs of an appeal under Rule 61.06(1)(b) in conjunction with Rule 56.01(1)(d), the reference to "costs of the defendant or respondent" must be read as "costs of the respondent in the appeal," not the costs awarded at trial.

The court found the appellants had sufficient assets in Ontario to pay the estimated appeal costs of $30,000 and that ordering security would undermine the appellants' right to appeal.

The applicant sought to assess 30 accounts rendered by the respondent law firm, alleging incompetence and malfeasance.

The application was dismissed, and the respondent sought costs of $31,877.30.

The court found the respondent's claimed hourly rate and preparation time reasonable given the complexity of the facts and the gravity of the allegations.

After a minor deduction for an issue on which the applicant was successful, the court ordered the applicant to pay costs of $30,458.38 forthwith.

The appellants brought a defamation action against the respondents regarding an article in New Scientist Magazine questioning the reliability of a blood paternity test.

After a 13-day hybrid trial, the trial judge dismissed the action and awarded costs of $1,478,766.64 to the respondents.

The appellants appealed.

The respondents moved for security for costs on appeal, arguing the appeal was frivolous and vexatious and that the appellants had insufficient assets.

The appellants also sought to lift the automatic stay of the trial costs award.

The motion judge dismissed the respondents' motion, finding the appeal was not vexatious, the appellants had sufficient assets to pay appeal costs, and there was no financial hardship to the respondents warranting lifting the stay.

The applicant sought to assess 30 accounts rendered by his former law firm in a family law matter, alleging the firm failed to prepare for trial and demanded an exorbitant additional retainer.

The court found that the applicant, a sophisticated client, had deliberately obstructed trial preparation and orchestrated the breakdown of the solicitor-client relationship to obtain an adjournment.

The court held that no special circumstances existed to justify assessing the accounts and dismissed the application.

The applicant's motion for a sealing order was partially granted to redact identifying information about his children, but otherwise dismissed as the information was already public and solicitor-client privilege was waived by the nature of the allegations.

An employee appealed the dismissal of her action against her former employer for constructive dismissal, intentional infliction of mental distress, and inducing breach of contract.

The employee had resigned after her mentor and superior departed the company, citing increased workload and a poisoned work environment.

The trial judge found no causal link between the alleged breaches and the resignation, and that the employee had acquiesced in the changed working conditions over an extended period.

The trial judge also rejected claims of intentional infliction of mental distress arising from an investigation into alleged software sabotage, finding the investigation was conducted in good faith.

The inducing breach of contract claim failed due to lack of evidence of a valid contract and intent to breach.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought an action against her former employer for constructive dismissal, bad faith termination, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and inducing breach of contract.

She alleged she was constructively dismissed due to increased hours and a poisoned work environment.

She also claimed the employer acted in bad faith and intentionally inflicted mental suffering by investigating her for post-employment sabotage of its billing system and reporting her to the police.

Finally, she alleged the employer induced a breach of a consulting contract she had with a third party.

The court dismissed the action in its entirety, finding the plaintiff resigned due to dissatisfaction with management, condoned any changes to her working conditions, and that the employer conducted its investigation in good faith.

The court also found no valid contract existed to support the inducing breach claim.

Following earlier reasons setting aside a Report and Certificate of Assessment and directing a new assessment, the court considered competing submissions on costs.

Although the clients succeeded on the issue of lack of service of the assessment hearing, the court found their evidence unreliable and declined to award them costs.

The court determined there was no bona fide dispute regarding the retainer and that the creditor had been wholly successful on that issue.

The court further criticized the clients for strategically amending their motion after the creditor refused to consent to the relief sought.

A modest costs award was ordered against two of the clients.