Richard Keith Watson

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss or stay the plaintiff's action, alleging it was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and that the plaintiff's counsel was in an incurable conflict of interest.

The court found the action to be an abuse of process due to significant overlap with other proceedings and the plaintiff's counsel's prior representation of one of the defendants as estate trustee, which provided access to privileged information.

The court concluded that this conflict created incurable prejudice.

The action was permanently stayed, and the plaintiff's counsel was removed from the record and prohibited from acting in any proceeding related to the estate where the defendant is a party.

Costs were awarded to the moving parties.

The applicant, a lawyer, brought an application challenging the vires of the Law Society Tribunal’s costs rules, which the respondent Law Society moved to strike.

The scheduled hearing was adjourned because both parties failed to file necessary materials in advance, leading to procedural disputes and preventing the judge from fully preparing.

This lack of preparation also delayed the discovery of a potential judicial conflict of interest, necessitating the adjournment.

The court emphasized the importance of counsel ensuring all required materials are filed properly to avoid increasing court backlogs.

The moving parties, a former lawyer and his professional corporation, sought an urgent order to pay the net proceeds of a condominium sale into court, pending their motion to extend time for an appeal from an underlying judgment.

The judgment had declared a trust invalid and ordered the discharge of a mortgage and return of assets to an estate, which the moving parties had failed to comply with, leading to a contempt finding.

The moving parties argued the payment was necessary to protect a beneficiary's interests and alleged estate mismanagement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding the allegations of mismanagement incredible and the payment into court unnecessary.

The court noted the moving parties' history of obstruction, non-compliance with court orders, and unlikelihood of the appeal proceeding due to unpaid costs.

The applicant, Estate Trustee of Aghdas Javid's Estate, brought a motion for civil contempt against the respondents, Richard Keith Watson and his professional corporation, for non-compliance with a prior judgment.

The prior judgment had invalidated a trust created by Mr. Watson, ordered the discharge of a mortgage, conveyance of a condominium, remittance of trust funds, and compliance with disclosure undertakings.

The court found the respondents in contempt for failing to provide required documents and answer undertakings, but not for the mortgage discharge or conveyance, or remitting trust funds (pending updated statements).

A penalty hearing is to follow.

This costs endorsement addresses the failure of the Respondent, Stewart Wilson, to pay outstanding costs awards to the Applicant, Sara Fatahi-Ghandehari.

The court clarified the specific amounts owing from previous orders, including interest, and directed Mr. Wilson to pay a total of $80,377.22.

The court also ruled that payments should be made to the Applicant's counsel in trust, rather than directly to the Applicant, due to the contentious nature of the case.

The court declined to enforce costs awards from the Court of Appeal, stating it lacked jurisdiction to do so.

No costs were awarded for the submissions themselves due to both parties' non-compliance with court directions.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim alleging professional negligence in the handling and settling of a prior lawsuit.

The court denied the plaintiffs' last-minute adjournment request, finding their reasons insufficient and their non-compliance with the timetable unacceptable.

The court granted summary judgment, dismissing the claim on the grounds that it was without foundation, time-barred, and constituted an abuse of process, as many issues had been previously litigated and decided by other judges.

An appeal concerning the appointment of guardians for a 90-year-old mother's property and personal care.

David and Edward Carey, who were originally applicants, withdrew their support for the applicants' position and sought to be appointed as appellants.

The motion judge had previously removed them as applicants without making them respondents.

The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's decision to appoint guardians in the best interests of the mother.

The court ordered David and Edward Carey to pay costs of $5,000 to the respondents.

The appellants sought an adjournment of their appeal, which was granted with the respondent's consent.

The court set a peremptory hearing date of November 28, 2019, with a 45-minute time allocation (30 minutes for appellants, 15 minutes for respondent).

The appellants were required to perfect the appeal within 21 days, and the respondent was to file their factum within 10 days of receiving the perfected appeal.

The court awarded costs to the respondent in the amount of $1,500, payable by the appellants within 21 days.

Non-compliance with the terms could result in dismissal of the appeal as abandoned.

This final judgment addresses the ongoing dispute among Jennie Carey's adult children regarding her guardianship for personal care and property.

Jennie, 91 and suffering from dementia, was found incapable of making her own decisions.

The court's interim decision had appointed Robert and Arthur as co-guardians for personal care, and Robert, Arthur, and Edward as co-guardians for property.

However, due to severe animosity and unilateral actions by both Robert and Arthur, the co-guardians were unable to cooperate.

The court found Arthur's financial conduct inexcusable and Robert's unilateral care plans not in Jennie's best interest.

Consequently, the court restructured the guardianship: Robert Carey was appointed sole guardian for Jennie's property, while Arthur Carey and Edward Carey were appointed co-guardians for Jennie's personal care.

The decision emphasizes the need for guardians to prioritize the incapable person's best interests over personal conflicts.

The respondents moved to quash an appeal on the grounds that the order appealed from was interlocutory.

The underlying Superior Court application involved a family dispute concerning the care of a 91-year-old woman with dementia.

Following a five-day trial, the trial judge made orders regarding her physical and financial care and adjourned the balance of the trial, reserving the right to make final determinations if the parties could not agree.

The Court of Appeal held that the order was interlocutory because it did not determine the subject matter of the litigation, which remained outstanding.

The appeal was quashed with costs awarded to the respondents.

Supplementary reasons to an appeal of an order striking the appellant's fresh as amended statement of claim.

The respondents requested the court re-open the appeal and withdraw, alter, or modify its decision, arguing the court misapprehended the timing of the demand for particulars, the history of the bankruptcy proceeding, and conflated oral submissions with pleading content.

The court rejected the second and third arguments and, while acknowledging the respondents' point regarding the timing of the demand for particulars, declined to re-open the appeal as it was not in the interests of justice and the result would have been the same.

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.

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 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.