The plaintiff sued its former defence counsel for professional negligence and negligent misrepresentation, alleging the lawyer misrepresented a settlement offer from the Crown in an underlying environmental prosecution, which led the plaintiff's insurer to cap coverage.
The defendants moved for summary judgment.
After a mini-trial to resolve credibility issues, the court found that the lawyer accurately reported the conditional nature of the settlement discussions and did not misrepresent the offer.
The court also found no conflict of interest and held that the lawyer acted reasonably and upon instructions in providing a case assessment memorandum to the insurer.
The summary judgment motion was granted and the action dismissed.
