Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2018-09-06 Docket: C64742

Judges: Sharpe, van Rensburg and Brown JJ.A.

Between

Doug LaFramboise Plaintiff (Appellant)

and

Varindra Kaisersingh and Cindy Kaisersingh Defendants (Respondents)

Counsel

Doug LaFramboise, in person

D. Jared Brown, for the respondents

Heard and released orally: September 6, 2018

On appeal from: the order of Justice Laura A. Bird of the Superior Court of Justice, dated November 28, 2017.

Reasons for Decision

[1] The appellant, Doug LaFramboise, a lawyer, appeals from the order of the motion judge granting the respondents summary judgment dismissing his action to collect an account for legal services in the amount of $51,493.37.

[2] In his factum, the appellant raises a single ground of appeal: the motion judge erred in concluding that there was no material non-disclosure or fraudulent representation by, or on behalf of, the respondents in respect of the release of the account signed by Mr. Pomer or during the proceeding that the respondents commenced to assess the account: at para. 30. The thrust of his submissions – and the grounds of appeal enumerated in his notice of appeal - is that the motion judge failed to assign proper weight to certain evidence in reaching that conclusion.

[3] We see no error by the motion judge. In reaching her conclusion, she made several critical findings of fact that were fully supported by the evidence.

[4] First, she found, at para. 25, that Mr. Pomer was fully aware of the appellant's outstanding action against the Kaisersinghs 14 months before he signed the release in respect of the legal account. That finding was supported by the documentary evidence, in particular Ms. Kaisersingh's July 18, 2014 email to Mr. Pomer attaching the appellant's statement of claim: at para. 24.

[5] Second, she found the appellant was aware of the assessment proceeding no later than July 2014: at para. 28. That finding was supported by the July 10, 2014 letter from the respondents' counsel to the appellant's then counsel informing him of the assessment and providing the court file number for the assessment. It was open to the appellant to seek to be added as a party to the assessment; he did not do so.

[6] Third, she found the respondents were entitled to rely on the statement of appellant's counsel, in his July 15, 2014 letter, that he would be sending the assessment officer a copy of the appellant's statement of claim: at paras. 28-29.

[7] Given those reasonable findings of fact, the motion judge did not err in concluding there was no material non-disclosure or fraudulent representation by or on behalf of the respondents.

[8] The appeal is dismissed.

[9] The appellant shall pay the respondents their costs of the appeal, including the motion before Roberts J.A., fixed in the amount of $15,000, inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.

"Robert J. Sharpe J.A."

"K. van Rensburg J.A."

"David Brown J.A."