4 total
Summary judgment granted with $25,000 in punitive damages against disbarred lawyer for misappropriating real estate funds.
The plaintiff title insurer brought an undefended motion for summary judgment against a disbarred lawyer and his law firm.
The defendant had acted for vendors in a real estate transaction and misappropriated the purchase funds, failing to pay municipal taxes or discharge existing mortgages.
The plaintiff paid $101,484.38 to clear title for the purchasers and sought to recover this amount plus $100,000 in punitive damages.
The court granted judgment for the compensatory damages and awarded $25,000 in punitive damages, finding the defendant's conduct struck at the heart of the trust necessary for real estate transactions.
The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of an anti-SLAPP motion regarding a private spousal communication and denied the self-represented respondent's cross-appeal for costs.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal from the motion judge’s order dismissing an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.
The court found that the expression at issue—a private comment between spouses—did not relate to a matter of public interest.
The court also denied leave to appeal the motion judge’s costs order, upholding the finding that the self-represented respondent had not established a basis for costs.
The decision affirms the high threshold for overturning discretionary costs decisions and clarifies the application of the public interest requirement in anti-SLAPP proceedings.
Dismissal for delay was set aside because an unserved order removing counsel was legally ineffective.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal of Herbert and Jacqueline Watkins, setting aside the order dismissing their action and the associated costs order.
The motion judge had dismissed the action for failure to appoint counsel or deliver a notice of intent to act in person under r. 15.04(8) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and for delay under r. 24.01.
The Court of Appeal found that the removal order for the appellants' counsel was not effective, as it was not properly served, and that the motion judge erred in relying on r. 15.04(8).
The finding of inordinate and inexcusable delay was also found to be unreasonable due to confusion over representation.
Costs of the appeal were awarded to the appellants.
Leave to appeal ODACC adjudicator's decision granted with an interim stay of the payment order.
The moving party sought leave to appeal an ODACC adjudicator's decision.
The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal and fixed the costs of the leave motion at $30,000, payable in the discretion of the panel deciding the application for judicial review.
The court also granted an interim stay of the impugned payment order pending a motion for an interlocutory stay or further direction from the case management judge.