2 total
Solicitor's negligence action dismissed as the court found the lawyer provided correct limitation period advice.
The plaintiff, Hilary Salmon, sued her former lawyer, Jonathan Keslassy, and his firm, Garfin Zeidenberg LLP, for solicitor's negligence.
Salmon alleged that Keslassy provided incorrect advice regarding the limitation period for a potential defamation lawsuit against the Toronto Star.
The court assessed the credibility of both Salmon and Keslassy concerning a pivotal phone call, finding Keslassy's testimony more credible and reliable.
The court concluded that Keslassy had provided the correct limitation period advice (six weeks for notice, three months to commence action).
Consequently, Salmon failed to prove solicitor's negligence.
The court also hypothetically considered the merits of the defamation claim, finding the article likely defamatory but that the defence of responsible communication on matters of public interest would have succeeded, leading to only nominal damages.
The action was dismissed.
The court ordered the plaintiff subcontractor to post $100,000 in security for costs after finding indicia of insolvency and unfair litigation conduct.
Powerline Plus Ltd. brought a motion for an order requiring Platinum Infrastructure Inc. to post security for Powerline's costs in the amount of $202,000.
Platinum opposed, arguing impecuniosity and merit.
The court granted leave for the motion under the Construction Act, finding Powerline established good reason to believe Platinum had insufficient assets, citing indicia of insolvency.
Platinum failed to prove impecuniosity or sufficient assets.
While Platinum showed a good chance of proving Powerline breached the subcontract, its claim quantum was inconsistent, and Powerline's set-off defence had some merit, though lacking cost evidence.
Considering Platinum's litigation conduct, which included unfair practices, the court ordered Platinum to post $100,000 in security for costs, payable in two installments.
