4 total
Solicitor who withdraws must release file for litigation continuation despite unpaid fees.
The plaintiff brought a motion compelling former counsel to deliver the litigation file after the lawyer removed himself as counsel of record due to unpaid accounts.
The former solicitor asserted a solicitor’s lien over the file under s. 6(6) of the Solicitors Act.
The court reviewed the distinction between situations where a solicitor discharges the client and where the client discharges the solicitor.
Because the solicitor had withdrawn from the retainer, the court held the file must be delivered to allow continuation of the underlying lawsuit, though the solicitor’s lien remained preserved.
The court ordered delivery of the file subject to undertakings from new counsel and maintained the lien against any eventual recovery.
Order permitting audio recording of defence medical examination set aside as specific factual foundation of abuse is required.
The defendants in a personal injury action sought an order to compel the plaintiff to attend a defence medical examination.
The plaintiff agreed on the condition that the examination be audio recorded, citing systemic bias among defence medical examiners.
The motion judge and Divisional Court allowed the condition.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered the examination to proceed without conditions, holding that an order to record a defence medical requires a specific factual foundation of potential abuse or concern regarding the specific doctor, not merely allegations of general systemic bias.
Appeal from refusal to set aside default judgment dismissed due to failure to demonstrate lack of prejudice.
The appellant appealed an order refusing to set aside a default judgment.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the appellant failed to demonstrate the respondent would suffer no prejudice if the default judgment were set aside.
Costs of $3,500 were awarded to the respondent.
Action by police officer dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as dispute governed by collective agreement.
The appellant, a police officer, brought an action against the police association, the police board, and various officers for workplace-related complaints.
The motion judge dismissed the action, finding the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction because the dispute arose from the employment relationship and was governed by the collective agreement and the Police Services Act.
The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, confirming that the legislative scheme provides a comprehensive mechanism for resolving such disputes, including the appointment of a conciliation officer under section 123(1) of the Act.
