M. Cohen

The plaintiff forensic accounting firm brought an action for unpaid professional fees against a former client and her lawyer.

The client alleged there was an oral agreement capping the fees at $40,000, and brought a crossclaim against her lawyer for professional negligence, alleging he failed to secure her ex-husband's assets during her family law dispute.

The court found no credible evidence of an agreement to limit the accounting fees and ordered the client and lawyer to pay the outstanding balance.

The court dismissed the crossclaim, finding the lawyer did not breach the standard of care, the alleged negligence did not cause the loss, and the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The appellant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering his eviction from a non-profit housing co-operative.

The Board found that the appellant's conduct, which included verbal harassment and laying siege to the co-op office, seriously impaired the safety of the property manager.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Board's formulation of the test for serious impairment of safety and no palpable and overriding error of fact in its evidentiary findings.

Vixman Construction Ltd. was convicted of two regulatory offences under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) following the death of worker William Dean Maguire, who fell approximately 3.6 metres from a work surface at Billy Bishop Toronto Island Airport on March 27, 2018.

The Crown alleged that the company failed to ensure proper fall arrest system configuration and failed to arrange the fall arrest system so that a worker could not hit the ground or an object below the work.

The court imposed a $125,000 fine plus a 25% Victim Fine Surcharge and an 18-month probation order with conditions requiring the company to publish safety information, produce an educational video, and implement enhanced fall protection procedures.

A worker employed by Vixman Construction Ltd. was fatally injured when he fell approximately 3.6 metres from a work surface at Billy Bishop Toronto Island Airport on March 27, 2018.

The Crown prosecuted Vixman under the Occupational Health and Safety Act for failing to ensure that prescribed fall arrest measures and procedures were carried out in the workplace.

Specifically, the Crown alleged violations of Ontario Regulation 213/91 regarding the improper anchoring of a self-retracting lifeline (SRL) and the failure to ensure that the fall arrest system was arranged so that a worker could not hit the ground or an object below the work surface.

The defendant argued a due diligence defence, claiming it had implemented comprehensive safety training, policies, and procedures.

The court found that while Vixman maintained a robust safety program, it failed to enforce critical specific requirements at the job site, including the failure to calculate fall clearances prior to work commencement and the failure to ensure the use of a safe anchoring method.

The court convicted Vixman on both counts, finding that the defendant did not discharge its burden of proving that every reasonable precaution was taken.

The court addressed scheduling and case management issues relating to a proposed summary judgment motion in a commercial dispute.

The parties disagreed over whether the issues overlapped with a separate related action and over the scope of financial document production relevant to a loss of profits claim.

The court directed that the summary judgment motion be heard on the same day as the related action to permit a single judge to assess the alleged overlap.

Case management directions were issued to facilitate cooperation, targeted document production, and coordinated scheduling of cross-examinations and motion materials.

The court emphasized the culture shift toward proportionality and cooperation mandated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Hryniak.

The estate trustee of a deceased co‑owner sought an order under the Partition Act for the sale of jointly held property.

The respondent, the deceased’s brother and co‑owner, opposed the sale and asserted that the deceased and his spouse had separated and settled their claims, allegedly releasing any entitlement to the property.

The respondent relied primarily on affidavit evidence recounting statements by the deceased and references to missing documents allegedly confirming the settlement.

The court held that while the applicant’s case appeared strong, there were material factual disputes concerning whether the surviving spouse had relinquished her interest.

Given the evidentiary conflicts and the hearsay nature of the record, the matter required viva voce evidence and a trial of the issues.

The application for sale under the Partition Act was therefore refused and the matter directed to trial.