Lindsay N. Beck

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rules 21 and 25 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike portions of the defendant’s statement of defence and counterclaim in a civil assault action.

The defendant had previously pleaded guilty in criminal proceedings to assault with a weapon arising from the same incident.

The court held that the guilty plea conclusively established that the defendant engaged in intentional conduct and that attempts in the pleading to characterize the incident as accidental constituted an abuse of process by attempting to relitigate matters already determined.

However, the defendant remained entitled to contest damages, describe surrounding events, and pursue a counterclaim for assault arising from the altercation.

Paragraphs attempting to deny intentional conduct were struck, but the balance of the defence and counterclaim were allowed to stand.

The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing a solicitor’s negligence claim arising from a commercial real estate transaction involving a building encroaching on a municipal laneway.

The plaintiffs alleged their lawyers failed to warn that the municipality might require payment to convey the laneway and that the title insurance obtained did not cover such a cost.

The court rejected arguments that the claim was statute‑barred and held that expert evidence was unnecessary because the failure to warn of a significant legal risk was apparent on the record.

Applying the “but for” causation test, the court found that had proper advice been given the plaintiffs likely would have sought protection such as a holdback or price abatement.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed and partial summary judgment was granted to the plaintiffs, leaving only the assessment of damages and the claim against the title insurer for trial.

The client appealed a motion judge's decision that set aside an assessment officer's award regarding her solicitors' bill of costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the assessment officer erred by ignoring the retainer agreement, improperly discounting docketed time, and mischaracterizing the complexity of the matrimonial litigation.

The court also rejected the client's allegation of reasonable apprehension of bias against the motion judge.

A law firm brought a motion under the Solicitors Act to oppose confirmation of an Assessment Officer’s certificate that substantially reduced the firm’s solicitor‑client accounts arising from family law litigation.

The court reviewed the assessment on the standard of error in principle and held that the officer committed several errors, including mischaracterizing the complexity of the matter, improperly relying on the former Costs Grid to reduce agreed hourly rates, rejecting the firm’s team staffing model without evidentiary basis, and criticizing counsel’s skill and competence without expert evidence.

The court found the assessment reasoning arbitrary and result‑oriented.

Rather than remitting the matter for reassessment, the court substituted its own determination of the appropriate fees and disbursements.