Who is Nathaniel Erskine-Smith?

Nathaniel Erskine-Smith is an Ontario lawyer with 3 court cases on record from 2013 to 2015.

What courts has Nathaniel Erskine-Smith appeared in?

Nathaniel Erskine-Smith has appeared in Court of Appeal, Superior Court of Justice, with most appearances at the Court of Appeal.

How many cases has Nathaniel Erskine-Smith handled?

Nathaniel Erskine-Smith has 3 cases on record from 2013 to 2015.

What judges has Nathaniel Erskine-Smith appeared before?

Nathaniel Erskine-Smith has most frequently appeared before Justice Robert A. Muir, Justice van Rensburg, Justice Benotto.

Nathaniel Erskine-Smith

3 total

Frank v. Legate, 2015 ONCA 631

The appellant, a physician, sued the respondent lawyers who represented her former patients in medical malpractice actions and complaints to the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

The appellant alleged defamation, malicious prosecution, champerty and maintenance, intentional interference with economic relations, and intentional infliction of mental distress based on statements published on the respondents' website and in the news.

The motion judge struck the statement of claim in its entirety for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the defamation claim was based on statements incapable of defamatory meaning, the other tort claims were premature or improperly pleaded, and the action as a whole constituted an abuse of process designed to collaterally attack the ongoing proceedings against the appellant.

ONCASep 18, 2015

Applicant Counsel

D'Antonio v. Monaco, 2015 ONCA 274

The appellant and respondent entered into a business arrangement to acquire a property, incorporating a company to hold it.

The respondent provided financing, secured by promissory notes and share pledging agreements.

When a third partner defaulted, the appellant acquired his shares but failed to pay the outstanding debt associated with them.

The trial judge found the respondent was entitled to forfeit the unpaid shares, resulting in a 55% ownership stake for the respondent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge reasonably interpreted the interconnected agreements and correctly found that the statement of claim served as sufficient written notice of forfeiture.

ONCAApr 21, 2015

Applicant Counsel

Auto Maculate Inc. et al. v. Arcanti et al.; Roy Wahab v. Arcanti et al., 2013 ONSC 7946

Following motions granting leave to amend statements of claim under Rules 5.04 and 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court addressed costs.

The plaintiffs sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing complete success and alleging procedural misconduct including late responding materials and a property transfer during the motion.

The defendants argued that the amendments constituted an indulgence and that their opposition was reasonable given the plaintiffs’ delay in bringing the motions.

The court found that the plaintiffs had delayed unnecessarily, creating additional discoverability issues that justified the defendants’ opposition.

No order for costs was made.

Applicant Counsel