Mana Khami

The plaintiff, Stephan Wiener, brought a claim for solicitor's negligence against his former lawyer, Paul Strickland, and his firm, Siskinds LLP.

The claim arose from a mediation where a settlement document was prepared.

The plaintiff alleged that Mr. Strickland bound him to the settlement without his instructions, specifically concerning his ability to sue a third-party lawyer (Douglas Gunn) and the expiry of a limitation period for such a claim.

The court found that the settlement document, which referred to "standard releases," did not prevent the plaintiff from suing Mr. Gunn.

The court also rejected the argument that the limitation period had expired, noting that the defendant was not retained to advise on a claim against Mr. Gunn and that a limitation period is a defence, not a bar to launching an action.

The plaintiff's claim was dismissed.

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sued the estates of the deceased drivers.

Due to the plaintiff and his father sharing the same name, the plaintiff's counsel mistakenly believed the plaintiff owned the vehicle and did not name the father as a defendant.

After the limitation period expired, the plaintiff added the father as a defendant.

The third-party insurer moved for summary judgment to dismiss the claim against the father as statute-barred.

The court granted the motion, finding that the father's ownership was discoverable with reasonable diligence before the limitation period expired, and drew an adverse inference from the failure of the plaintiff, his father, and their senior counsel to provide affidavits.

The defendant, Karen Pacey, brought a motion to stay a proceeding initiated by Allied Accounting & Tax Services Limited and Allied Associates LLP, arguing that the dispute fell under an arbitration clause in a Shareholders’ Agreement (SA).

The plaintiffs alleged breaches of confidentiality and non-competition provisions in both the SA and a Representative’s Contract, the latter lacking an arbitration clause.

The court found that the SA's arbitration clause was qualified by other provisions explicitly referring to "court" for equitable relief, indicating an exclusion for such disputes from arbitration.

Additionally, the court found that the defendant unduly delayed in bringing the motion for a stay, which would have been a separate ground for refusal.

The motion to stay the proceeding was dismissed.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ action on a summary judgment motion, the successful defendants sought costs.

The plaintiffs argued that no costs should be awarded due to financial hardship and requested that any costs order include limited monthly payments and enforcement restrictions.

The court reviewed the principles governing costs under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and authorities addressing whether impecuniosity should influence a costs award.

The court held that economic hardship did not justify departing from the general rule that costs follow the event and found the plaintiffs’ claims to be ill‑conceived.

Costs were awarded to the defendants, including a reduced amount for one defendant who retained separate counsel shortly before the motion hearing.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' negligence action.

The plaintiffs, who were shareholders of a corporation, alleged that the defendants negligently terminated a contract with the corporation, causing the plaintiffs personal financial losses, including the loss of a U.S. work permit and a real estate deposit.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, finding that the claims were precluded by the rule in Foss v. Harbottle, as shareholders cannot sue for wrongs done to the corporation.

Furthermore, the court held that the defendants owed no duty of care to the plaintiffs due to a lack of proximity and foreseeability, and the claims for pure economic loss did not fall within recognized legal categories.