Luisa J. Ritacca

The appellant brought an action against her former lawyers alleging breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and negligence in connection with a wrongful dismissal settlement.

The appellant claimed the respondent lawyers conspired with her former employer, preferred the employer's interests, and induced her to enter into an improvident settlement.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the claim, finding no genuine issue for trial and rejecting allegations of collusion.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding the motion judge properly assessed whether the respondents' advice was reasonable and whether the settlement was improvident given the litigation risks.

The applicants sought to remit an arbitration matter back to the arbitrator under section 46(8) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, arguing that the arbitrator failed to address certain issues and that the purported transfer of shares in Power Investment Properties Inc. should be declared invalid.

The respondents sought enforcement of the arbitral awards.

The court dismissed the applicants' application as time-barred under section 47 of the Arbitration Act, finding that the 30-day deadline for bringing a section 46 application applies to all applications under section 46, including those seeking remittance under section 46(8).

The court granted the respondents' application to enforce the arbitral awards.

The defendants, a law firm and its lawyers, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss a $20 million action for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence brought by their former clients.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants conspired with the opposing party in a prior wrongful dismissal action and negligently advised them, leading to an improvident settlement.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial.

It held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a conflict of interest or professional negligence, and that the settlement was not improvident given the risks of continued litigation.

The plaintiff, Sharna Gayle, brought a motion to amend her Amended Statement of Claim in a solicitor's negligence action against Lerners LLP and its lawyers.

The proposed amendments sought to increase the damages claimed from $1,000,000 to $20,000,000 and to add extensive particulars detailing the alleged negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, including allegations of conflict of interest due to "religious and personal affiliations." The court granted the amendment to increase the damages, affirming that such an increase does not constitute prejudice.

However, the court dismissed the motion to add the detailed particulars, finding that these proposed amendments violated Rule 25.06(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure by pleading evidence, explanations, and submissions rather than concise material facts.

The court also found that the proposed amendments did not introduce a new cause of action and that the delay in seeking amendments was not excessive enough to presume non-compensable prejudice.

This complex motion involved the defendants, Dr. Saad and the Canadian Companies, seeking to set aside ex parte Mareva injunctions, Norwich orders, and receivership orders previously granted to the plaintiffs.

The defendants argued material non-disclosure by the plaintiffs, particularly regarding the political motivations behind the litigation and the legitimate commercial relationships between the parties.

The plaintiffs sought to continue and vary the orders.

The court found no material non-disclosure sufficient to set aside the Mareva order against Dr. Saad, continuing it.

However, the Norwich and Receivership orders against the Canadian Companies were set aside due to non-material but impactful non-disclosure that changed the factual landscape, making the orders overly broad.

The court also addressed the application of the deemed undertaking rule for documents obtained through Norwich orders.

The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiff's two construction defect actions for delay.

The actions were commenced in 2011 and 2012 but had not progressed to discoveries.

The plaintiff's former counsel claimed a 'mental block' prevented him from advancing the files, and the plaintiff's principal claimed ignorance of the delay.

The court found the delay was inordinate and inexcusable, noting the plaintiff's principal failed to monitor the litigation.

The court also found actual prejudice to the defendants, including the death of a key witness.

The motions were granted and the actions dismissed.

The appellants (tenant and its successor) repudiated a commercial lease for an industrial property owned by the respondent.

The respondent was forced to sell the property and sued for damages.

The trial judge awarded $1,277,000 in damages, including lost rental profits and lost capital appreciation.

The appellants appealed, arguing the sale at fair market value fully mitigated damages and that lost capital appreciation was too remote.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that damages for lost capital appreciation were too remote under the Hadley v. Baxendale test, that the property was sold at fair market value, and that damages should be calculated using a discounted cash flow analysis based on the 2013 sale price with appropriate deductions for mitigation.

This endorsement addresses the costs of an action where the plaintiff, Saramia Crescent General Partner Ltd., was awarded $1,277,000 in damages for breach of lease.

The court determined that the plaintiff was entitled to costs on a partial indemnity scale up to November 8, 2016, and on a substantial indemnity scale thereafter, having beaten two offers to settle.

The defendants' arguments that the costs were excessive, that the issues were novel justifying a reduction, or that mediation costs should be excluded were largely rejected.

A minor reduction was made for communications costs.

The court also drew an adverse inference against the defendants for failing to disclose their own costs.

The plaintiff landlord sued the defendant tenant for damages after the tenant repudiated a commercial lease with eight years remaining.

The repudiation forced the plaintiff to sell the property, as it could not afford the carrying costs without the rental income and re-letting was unfeasible.

The defendants admitted liability but argued the plaintiff suffered no damages because the property was sold at fair market value.

The court rejected this argument, finding the forced sale was not at fair market value and did not compensate the plaintiff for the lost income stream and capital appreciation.

The court accepted the plaintiff's discounted cash flow analysis to quantify damages, using the 2015 appraised fair market value to account for foreseeable lost capital appreciation, and assuming reasonable mitigation through a hypothetical investment in a REIT basket.