M. Khami

The parties were scheduled for a four-hour special appointment hearing for a motion brought by the defendant.

Despite filing a Certificate of Readiness, the parties failed to adhere to the timetable and the matter was not ready to proceed.

The court noted that the failure to bring the matter forward earlier resulted in wasted court time.

As a consequence, the court adjourned the motion to a speak-to date and ordered that no new hearing date would be scheduled until counsel can confirm that all preparatory steps are complete.

The plaintiff brought an action for professional negligence against her former lawyers regarding their handling of a civil action.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment, and the defendants cross-moved for summary judgment and to strike the claim as an abuse of process.

The court dismissed both summary judgment motions due to credibility issues and the need for expert evidence.

The court also dismissed the motion to strike, finding that the action was not a collateral attack on the assessment officer's costs decision, nor did the plaintiff's abandoned appeal of the underlying judgment preclude her from bringing a civil action for solicitor negligence.

The self-represented plaintiff commenced an action against the Crown, his former union (AMAPCEO), and the union's legal counsel, alleging conspiracy and misfeasance in public office related to his 2014 termination and subsequent grievance proceedings.

The defendants moved to strike the statement of claim.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action against all defendants.

The court found the claims against the Crown were barred by res judicata from a prior dismissed action and fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of a labour arbitrator.

The claims against the union defendants were similarly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The claims against the union's lawyers were dismissed as statute-barred and because the lawyers owed no duty of care to the plaintiff.

Following trial, the court requested written submissions on the quantum of damages and the issue of costs in a dispute involving unpaid professional services.

The parties largely agreed on the base amount of treatment and assessment invoices but differed on interest and overall damages.

The court preferred the defendants’ calculations and fixed damages at $14,048.59 inclusive of interest adjustments and prior payments.

On costs, the court considered prior motion cost orders and multiple settlement offers under Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, concluding that the defendants’ offers exceeded the trial result.

After setting off various cost awards and applying partial indemnity and substantial indemnity principles, the net judgment payable to the plaintiff was reduced to $48.59.