Bryan A. Carroll

The plaintiff corporation sued its former solicitor in negligence, alleging he was in a conflict of interest and breached his fiduciary duty while acting for both sides in a joint venture and subsequent purchase and sale agreement for an apartment building conversion.

The plaintiff claimed the solicitor failed to advise them of their options when purchasers resiled from agreements and failed to disclose a vendor take back mortgage provided to another party.

The court dismissed the action, finding that while the solicitor breached the Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to obtain written consent for the joint retainer, his conduct did not fall below the standard of care of a reasonably competent solicitor.

The court also found no breach of fiduciary duty, as the undisclosed information was not material, and concluded the plaintiff failed to establish causation or damages.

The plaintiff brought a pre‑trial motion under Rule 21 seeking a determination of whether an insurer must respond to his claim arising from a motor vehicle collision involving the defendants.

The plaintiff argued that resolving the insurance coverage issue early would facilitate mediation and settlement discussions.

The court held that the plaintiff lacked standing to seek declaratory relief regarding coverage because no cause of action existed against the insurer prior to obtaining judgment against the insured defendants under s. 258 of the Insurance Act.

The court also found the issues raised involved mixed questions of fact and law and were not raised by the pleadings.

The motion was therefore dismissed.

The applicant, a child with Autism Spectrum Disorder and Global Developmental Disability, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination after being discharged from an intensive behavioural intervention program.

The applicant brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to add the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO) as a respondent, after learning from the Ministry of Children and Youth Services that CHEO was responsible for determining eligibility for the program.

Applying the Smyth test, the Tribunal granted the request, finding that CHEO might share responsibility for the alleged Code violations and that it would be fair to add them as a respondent.

The appellant appealed a Master's decision dismissing his motion to amend his statement of claim to add two third parties as defendants.

The appellant suffered a spinal injury in a swimming pool accident when he was a minor.

The court considered the transitional provisions and discoverability rules under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court upheld the Master's finding that the appellant did not actually discover his claim against the specific third parties prior to January 1, 2004.

Furthermore, the court held that a minor without a litigation guardian cannot be deemed to have discovered a claim under s. 5(1)(b), as minors are presumed not to know their rights.

The appeal was dismissed.

The insurer appealed an arbitration order finding that the insured's application for arbitration was not time-barred.

The insurer had terminated the insured's weekly income benefits and provided oral, but not written, notice of its decision.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, holding that under the Insurance Act and the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, an insurer must provide written notice of a refusal to pay benefits to trigger the two-year limitation period.

The Director's Delegate also rejected the insurer's argument that the insured was estopped from relying on the lack of written notice, finding insufficient evidence that the insurer continued to rely on any agreement to forgo written notice.