Robert G. Plate

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion to set aside a 2014 consent dismissal and underlying settlement of a personal injury action.

The settlement was negotiated by their former lawyer, who misappropriated the funds and failed to obtain court approval under Rule 7.08 for the injured plaintiff, who was a party under disability.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding she correctly applied the Book factors.

The insurer had acted in good faith without knowledge of the disability, and the settlement itself was not unreasonable.

The court held that the lawyer's fraud did not impugn the reasonableness of the settlement from the perspective of the tort claim.

This is an appeal concerning a dispute over the retention of a deposit on a commercial property after the agreement of purchase and sale (APS) was terminated.

The motion judge had found that the respondents (buyers) were entitled to terminate the APS and recover their $350,000 deposit because the appellant (seller) failed to comply with requisitions to remove an open building permit, which constituted a valid objection to title.

The appellant's claims for the deposit and punitive damages were denied.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's finding that the outstanding work permit entitled the respondents to terminate the APS, as it prevented the appellant from conveying good and marketable title.

The respondent law firm brought a motion for security for costs against the applicant, citing the applicant's non-residency and the alleged frivolous and vexatious nature of the application, coupled with insufficient assets.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that an order for security for costs would not be just.

The court emphasized the respondent's unreasonable delay in bringing the motion and the protective purpose of the Solicitors Act, which facilitates client assessment of solicitor accounts.

The court also found merit in the applicant's assessment claim.

The plaintiff in a Simplified Procedure action brought a motion to extend the time for examination for discovery of the defendant's representative by 60 minutes, later reduced to 30 minutes.

The request stemmed from technical difficulties in accessing the full surveillance footage of the incident prior to and during the initial discovery, despite an understanding between counsel that further questioning would occur once the footage was viewed.

The court granted the extension, finding it had jurisdiction under Rules 3.02(1) and 2.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court determined that extending the discovery was just and reasonable given the circumstances, the importance of the surveillance to the litigation, and the reliance of plaintiff's counsel on the agreement with the defendant's counsel.

The applicant law firm, Morse Shannon LLP, sought charging orders against any amounts recovered by the plaintiffs in two personal injury actions (Hughes and Nasir) where it had acted as agent counsel for the respondent solicitor, Fancy Barristers P.C. and Hassan A. Fancy.

The agency agreements were terminated, and the applicant's accounts for fees and disbursements remained unpaid.

The court granted the charging orders, finding that the applicant's work was instrumental in recovering or preserving the clients' property and that there was sufficient evidence that the accounts would not be paid.

The court also addressed the respondent's irrelevant allegations of misconduct and awarded costs to the applicant.