Court of Appeal for Ontario

CITATION: Hartmann v. Amourgis, 2009 ONCA 33

DATE: 20090114

DOCKET: C49060

BEFORE: Goudge, Gillese and Rouleau JJ.A.

BETWEEN:

Peter V. Hartmann Plaintiff (Appellant)

and

Julie Evelyn Amourgis, Jaroslava Frantel, The Law Society of Upper Canada and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario Defendants (Respondents)

COUNSEL:

Peter V. Hartmann in person

Susan M. Sack for the respondent Amourgis, Helen A. Daley for the respondent LSUC and Stephen Scharback for the respondent HMQ

HEARD: January 12, 2009

On appeal from the trial judgment of Justice Peter Jarvis of the Superior Court of Justice dated June 13, 2008.

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1] In our opinion the appeal must be dismissed. We agree with the motion judge that the claims made against Ms. Amourgis were raised as alleged facts by the appellant in the course of the matrimonial proceedings and determined against him. They cannot be relitigated. The claim against the LSUC fails both on this basis and because the appellant cannot succeed on these facts in establishing the breach of any duty owed to him by this respondent. The claim against HMQ also fails for the same reasons. As against the defendant Frantel, the motion judge had the inherent jurisdiction to stop what is clearly a collateral attack on the result of the matrimonial litigation. We agree with this result.

[2] We would also find the proposed fresh evidence to be inadmissible. The motion judge’s ability to render the decision he did is best evidenced by the decision itself, with which we have agreed. There is nothing in the fresh evidence that would lead to any other conclusion.

[3] The appeal must be dismissed. Costs to each respondent on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST.