James W. Srebrolow

The plaintiff, Xuan Wu, underwent a Brazilian Butt Lift at the Toronto Cosmetic Surgery Institute and subsequently developed a significant infection.

She sued Dr. Martin Jugenburg and his clinic, alleging that she did not provide informed consent because she was not made aware of the risk of infection.

The court found that informed consent was properly obtained through a series of consultations and written materials, and that the process met the legal standard.

The action was dismissed.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants' "boomerang" motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiffs' claim.

The case involved a dispute over entitlement to shares and options following the termination of a consulting arrangement.

The court found that the contract was not a fixed-term contract and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to unvested shares or options after their engagement ended.

The court also addressed the application of res judicata, finding that the plaintiffs should have sought all relief in a single proceeding, but ultimately decided the matter on the merits of the contract.

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 7 for approval of a proposed settlement involving claims of parties under disability.

The underlying action was a medical negligence claim against doctors and nurses involved in the care of the deceased.

The proposed settlement sought to dismiss the action without costs.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the supporting materials deficient as they lacked an affidavit from the litigation guardian and failed to adequately explain why liability could not be proven or why no expert opinion was obtained.

At a case management conference, the plaintiff sought an extension of time to serve expert reports because a pediatric neurologist required an MRI to finalize her opinion, and the MRI was delayed until December 2019.

The court granted the request and amended the timetable for the service of expert reports, setting new deadlines for the plaintiff's and defendants' reports.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action, the successful defendants sought costs.

The defendants had made offers to settle that the plaintiff did not accept, and the judgment reflected that the defendants achieved what they offered.

The court awarded costs on a substantial indemnity scale pursuant to Rule 49 and section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, noting that the plaintiff's claim was specious and an inappropriate use of the litigation process.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay costs of $33,362.34 to one defendant and $24,712.82 to the others.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision regarding a fee-sharing agreement between two law firms.

The appellants raised three issues: (1) the calculation of net fees under the agreement; (2) the imposition of liability on the corporate appellant based on a constructive trust; and (3) the costs award.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's findings on all three issues, dismissing the appeal with costs awarded to the respondent.

The plaintiff law firm, Srebrolow Lebowitz Spadafora PC (SLS), brought a motion for summary judgment against its former associate, Paul Wilkins, and his new firm, PW Lawyers Professional Corporation, regarding unpaid fees from client files transferred upon Wilkins' departure.

The dispute centered on whether certain referral fees paid by Wilkins to a third-party lawyer and a paralegal (who was an SLS employee at the time of referral) could reduce the net fees owed to SLS under their separation agreement.

The court found that the referral fee paid to the third-party lawyer was reasonable, but the fee paid to the paralegal was compensation, not a true referral fee, and thus not deductible.

The court also found PW Lawyers Professional Corporation liable by way of constructive trust for the funds owed to SLS.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment dismissing their claim for damages to their in-ground pool caused by improper winterization.

The appellants alleged the respondent breached its contractual obligation to provide pool training and was negligent in failing to warn them of the dangers of improper winterization.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors by reaching conclusions and making findings of fact prior to hearing all of the evidence, which tainted his assessment of the subsequent evidence and expert testimony.

The appellant law firm appealed an order of a Master dismissing its action against a former lawyer and his new firm for outstanding disbursements and legal fees.

The action was dismissed at a status hearing due to a two-year and four-month delay in advancing the litigation.

The Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the Master's conclusion that the appellant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay and failed to demonstrate a lack of prejudice to the respondents.

The appeal was dismissed.