Robin Brown

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 49.09 to enforce a settlement reached at mediation.

The self-represented plaintiff had agreed via email to accept $20,000 to settle her solicitor negligence claims and subsequently signed a full and final release, but later refused to sign a consent dismissal order, claiming she agreed under duress.

The court found that a binding agreement containing all essential terms was reached and that there was no evidence of duress, mistake, or lack of capacity.

The motion was granted, the action was dismissed, and the defendants were awarded partial indemnity costs to be deducted from the settlement funds.

The plaintiffs brought actions in debt against a lawyer and moved for summary judgment against both the lawyer and the law firm he shared space with, alleging they were partners or that the firm held him out as a partner.

The court granted summary judgment against the lawyer for the unpaid loans.

However, the court dismissed the claims against the law firm, finding that the lawyer was a sole practitioner and not a partner in fact.

Furthermore, while the lawyer may have been held out as a partner, the plaintiffs failed to prove they extended credit in reliance on that representation.

The court granted a 'boomerang' summary judgment dismissing the claims against the law firm despite the lack of a cross-motion.

The plaintiff commenced a $1,000,000 professional negligence action against the defendant dentist, alleging an allergic reaction to latex during treatment.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

Despite multiple adjournments and court orders over 15 months, the self-represented plaintiff failed to advance the litigation or produce any expert evidence to support her claim.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial as the plaintiff failed to provide the requisite expert evidence to establish the standard of care, breach, or causation.