M. Girard

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 plaintiffs sued their former solicitor and his law firm for professional negligence arising from his representation in three underlying actions.

The court found that the solicitor breached the standard of care in the primary underlying commercial litigation by failing to obtain relevant evidence, failing to bring a motion to strike a certificate of pending litigation, and failing to communicate with his clients and opposing counsel.

The court conducted a 'trial within a trial' and concluded that but for the solicitor's negligence, the plaintiffs would have avoided substantial legal fees.

The plaintiffs were awarded $425,987 in damages.

Following the sudden death of a successful furniture manufacturer, his common-law spouse and his daughters from a previous marriage engaged in extensive litigation.

The spouse, who operated her own furniture business from the same premises as the deceased's failing company, sued the daughters, the estate, and various professional advisors for breach of contract, civil conspiracy, and unlawful interference with economic relations after the deceased's company was placed into bankruptcy and her access to equipment was interrupted.

The court dismissed the conspiracy and interference claims, finding the defendants acted reasonably to manage the insolvency, but awarded the spouse $72,520 for breach of a handwritten lease and equipment agreement.

In related applications, the court upheld a change of life insurance beneficiary executed by the deceased before his death and enforced the terms of a cohabitation agreement, allowing the spouse to remain in the family home and ordering the estate to pay $84,106.25 for property maintenance and capital expenses.

During a commercial trial involving allegations of fraud and conspiracy related to the declaration of a corporate dividend, the court ruled on an objection to expert testimony.

Defence counsel argued the plaintiff’s expert sought to give opinions not contained in previously served expert reports contrary to Rule 53.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court held that an expert may explain or amplify matters latent in a report and allowed testimony on whether the dividend complied with statutory requirements under the Business Corporations Act, finding the issue sufficiently addressed in the reports.

However, the court prohibited testimony regarding what due diligence the accountant should have undertaken, as that issue was not contained in the expert reports or pleaded in the claim and would cause prejudice to the defence.