P. Miehls

The plaintiff law firm brought a motion for default judgment against the defendant for unpaid legal fees.

The defendant had retained the plaintiff in connection with her late husband's estate and family business but failed to pay the rendered invoices.

After being noted in default and failing to respond to the motion, the court granted default judgment in the amount of $290,551.86 plus costs.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for long-term disability benefits and related damages, including an allegation of conspiracy.

The plaintiff had previously received benefits but her coverage was terminated when she reduced her work hours to part-time.

The court found no evidence to support the conspiracy claim against the employer or the insurers.

Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiff's claim for disability benefits was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as she discovered or ought to have discovered her claim when she was allegedly unable to work full-time in March 2007, but did not commence the action until May 2011.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the action was dismissed.

Following an earlier decision striking the plaintiff’s statement of claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The defendant sought partial indemnity costs after being completely successful on its motion.

The self-represented plaintiff responded by focusing on the merits of the underlying claim rather than the costs issue.

The court held that the defendant was entitled to costs under Rule 57 and found the submitted bill of costs reasonable.

The defendant brought a motion under Rule 21.01 to strike the plaintiff’s statement of claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action and as an abuse of process.

The self‑represented plaintiff alleged professional negligence against a counselling services provider whose counsellor had allegedly advised his partner in a manner that ended their relationship.

The court held that neither the counsellor nor the employer owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, applying the principles articulated in Mustapha v. Culligan of Canada Ltd. and Syl Apps Secure Treatment Centre v. B.D. The court further found that the substance of the claim alleged interference with a familial relationship, a tort not recognized in Canada.

The statement of claim was struck without leave to amend.