Richard Emile Anka

The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal orders removing their solicitor of record and awarding costs.

The motion judge considered the test under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure for granting leave to appeal.

The underlying orders were based on a conflict of interest arising from a solicitor’s prior solicitor-client relationship and the potential use of confidential information, applying the principles from Martin v. MacDonald Estate (Gray).

The court found no good reason to doubt the correctness of the original decision removing counsel and awarding costs.

Leave to appeal was refused and the parties were ordered to bear their own costs of the motion.

The moving defendants sought leave under Rule 29.02(1.2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to issue a third party claim against an alarm monitoring company in an action alleging failure by insurance brokers to obtain adequate insurance coverage for stock spoilage.

The plaintiff opposed the motion on the basis that adding the third party would cause delay and prejudice.

The court held that leave should be granted unless the plaintiff would suffer meaningful prejudice, and found no evidence that witnesses or documents had been lost due to the delay.

The court also held that limitation period concerns were not determinative at the leave stage because the discoverability provisions of the Limitations Act, 2002 might postpone the running of the limitation period.

Leave to issue the third party claim was granted and service by courier on the proposed third party was validated.