Neil Foley

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision dismissing her claims against Minto Group Inc. (her penthouse landlord) and Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP (her lawyers).

The appellant had been defrauded by a man she met online who misrepresented his age, wealth, and background.

She sought damages from various parties, alleging they failed to protect her from the fraudster.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment, finding that the appellant's claims against both Minto and Faskens lacked merit.

Against Minto, the court found no genuine issue requiring trial on claims for intrusion upon seclusion, breach of contract, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, or infliction of mental distress.

Against Faskens, the court found that the lawyer had no obligation to conduct background investigations on the appellant's fiancé absent explicit instructions, and that the scope of the retainer did not include such duties.

The plaintiff was defrauded by her spouse, who she met online.

She sued her former landlord (Minto) and her former law firm (Faskens), alleging they had a duty to protect her by warning her of her spouse's fraudulent background.

Minto had conducted a credit check on the plaintiff without her explicit consent when her spouse applied for a lease.

Faskens had been retained for estate planning prior to the marriage.

Both defendants brought motions for summary judgment.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the motions and dismissed the claims against both defendants, finding that neither the landlord nor the law firm owed a duty to investigate the spouse or protect the plaintiff from his fraud.

The landlord sought an interim injunction against a tenant operating a restaurant and nightclub alleged to be producing excessive noise that interfered with other commercial tenants in the building.

Evidence showed that noise levels regularly exceeded the maximum permitted level established in a pre-opening Noise Plan and municipal by-law enforcement had issued citations.

Applying the test for interlocutory injunctions from R.J.R. MacDonald v. Canada (A.G.), the court found a serious issue to be tried, a risk of irreparable harm to the landlord through loss of current and prospective tenants, and that the balance of convenience favoured interim relief.

The court ordered the tenant to limit sound output to 91 dBA and to facilitate installation of a noise monitoring system pending the full injunction hearing.