Richard Keith Watson

The appellant appealed the motion judge's order striking his fresh as amended statement of claim without leave to amend and dismissing his action for malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office against the Law Society of Ontario and four individuals involved in investigations and proceedings concerning the appellant over 15 years.

The motion judge found the appellant had failed to provide sufficient particulars of improper purpose or ulterior motive as required by the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding the appellant had sufficiently pleaded the elements of both torts through his pleadings and response to the demand for particulars, except as to one respondent against whom no particulars were provided.

The court dismissed the appellant's motion to admit fresh evidence and vacated the costs order, awarding the appellant partial costs of the appeal.

The non-parties, Jason Bradimore and Straight Forward Auto Service Inc., moved to set aside a preservation order concerning exotic cars, arguing lack of notice and that the cars were not beneficially owned by the respondent, Stewart Wilson, but by his Trustee in Bankruptcy or their joint venture.

The court found that the non-parties had proper notice through their counsel and that the cars were effectively Wilson's property in name only, exhibiting "badges of fraud" in their transfer.

The motion to set aside the preservation order was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The applicants sought to remove Arthur and Douglas Carey as attorneys for property and personal care for their mother, Jennie Carey, and to appoint Robert Carey as guardian, alleging financial impropriety and isolation.

The court found strong evidence of misconduct and neglect regarding property management, including failure to account for funds and non-compliance with disclosure orders.

While Jennie was physically well cared for and wished to remain with Arthur and Douglas, their failure to foster family contact was a breach of personal care duties.

The court removed Arthur and Douglas as sole attorneys.

For property, Arthur, Robert, and Edward Carey were appointed joint guardians.

For personal care, Arthur and Robert were appointed joint guardians.

The court emphasized a nuanced approach to balance Jennie's well-being and wishes with the need for financial oversight and family contact.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment due to procedural and legal irregularities, the court determined the costs of the motions.

Although there was mixed success on other minor procedural issues, the defendant was the successful party on the most significant request.

The court awarded the defendant costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $3,882.82 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

Motion to extend time to seek leave to appeal from a Superior Court decision confirming an arbitral award.

The moving parties' counsel missed the 15-day deadline by 7 days due to mistakenly believing the deadline was 30 days.

The respondent conceded the delay was caused by counsel error with no prejudice, but argued the proposed appeal lacked merit.

The court found arguable merit in the procedural fairness issue regarding the arbitrator's refusal to arbitrate disputes involving one of the moving parties without inviting submissions.

The motion was allowed, granting the moving parties 10 days to file a motion for leave to appeal, with costs fixed in their favour.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment seeking the proceeds of a property sale, relying on a separation agreement between the deceased and the defendant.

The defendant argued the agreement was signed under duress.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment because the notice of motion failed to comply with Rule 37.06 by not specifying the rules relied upon, and lacked a proper evidentiary record for either a Rule 20 or Rule 21 motion.

The court also struck the defendant's counterclaim with leave to amend to properly plead the request to set aside the separation agreement.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion to recuse the judge for bias, the responding party, Falconers LLP, sought its costs.

The applicant had relied on an unsworn complaint to the Canadian Judicial Council containing serious, unsubstantiated allegations against the court.

The court held that costs should follow the event and that the responding party was reasonably required to attend the motion.

Costs were awarded to the responding party on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $3,165.

The applicant brought a motion asking the case management judge to recuse himself from an upcoming costs hearing, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant relied solely on the fact that she had filed a complaint against the judge with the Canadian Judicial Council, alleging sexist and racist remarks during a previous appearance.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the mere filing of a complaint, without cogent evidence to support the allegations, is insufficient to displace the presumption of judicial impartiality.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision striking his claim for negligent investigation against the Law Society of Upper Canada.

The motion judge relied on section 9 of the Law Society Act, which provides statutory immunity for actions against Law Society officials and, by extension, the Law Society itself.

The appellant argued that Edwards v. Law Society of Upper Canada had been superseded by Hill v. Hamilton-Wentworth Police Services Board, which established the tort of negligent investigation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the statutory immunity in section 9 of the Law Society Act remains binding and that Hill did not operate to extinguish such immunity.

The court also noted that only a five-judge panel could revisit the binding precedent of Edwards, which the appellant did not seek.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's amended Statement of Claim, seeking dismissal of the action.

The plaintiff's claim asserted causes of action for negligent investigation, malicious prosecution, and misfeasance in public office, stemming from disciplinary proceedings by the Law Society of Upper Canada that initially revoked his license but were later set aside on appeal.

The court struck the negligent investigation claim without leave to amend, finding it disclosed no reasonable cause of action due to the Law Society's immunity from negligence in good faith performance of its duties.

The claims for malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office were struck with leave to amend, as they lacked the full particulars of malice and bad faith required by Rule 25.06(8).

The court refused to dismiss the action as an abuse of process, determining that the plaintiff was not attempting to re-litigate issues already decided by the Law Society Appeal Division.