Robin S. Brown

The appellant, a defendant in an ongoing Superior Court action, commenced a separate action against the opposing counsel and their law firm, alleging negligence, misrepresentation, fraud, and conspiracy.

The motion judge dismissed the action under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's decision, as opposing counsel owed no duty of care to the appellant and the statement of claim failed to particularize any valid causes of action.

The plaintiff, Jayson Hopkins, sued his former lawyer, Patrick Murphy, and law firm, Beament Green, for professional negligence, alleging that Murphy negligently advised him to settle his motor vehicle accident lawsuit in 2008 for an improvidently low amount.

Hopkins sought approximately $3 million in damages, arguing that the $127,900 settlement for general damages and loss of income was inadequate.

The defendants denied negligence, asserting that the settlement was reasonable and that they met the standard of a prudent solicitor.

The court addressed whether Murphy was negligent or breached his contract and whether the "loss of chance" doctrine should apply.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove negligence or breach of contract, primarily due to the lack of expert evidence on the standard of care and the failure to conduct a "trial within a trial" or demonstrate its impossibility.

Consequently, the plaintiff's claim was dismissed.

This is a consolidated appeal from two summary judgments and a costs order.

The appellants sought to hold a law firm liable for the actions of a lawyer who shared office space, alleging he was either a partner or held out as one.

The motion judge found the lawyer was not a partner and not held out as such, dismissing the claims against the firm.

The motion judge also issued a "boomerang" summary judgment in favour of the firm.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's findings, concluding there was no palpable and overriding error in determining the lawyer was not a partner and that the appellants did not subjectively rely on any "holding out." The Court also affirmed the motion judge's authority to issue a boomerang order and her discretion regarding costs, including declining a Sanderson order.

This endorsement addresses costs following a summary judgment motion where the plaintiffs succeeded against Paul McEnery but failed against the law firm Williams McEnery/Williams Litigation Lawyers.

The law firm, as the successful defendant, was awarded its partial indemnity costs of $56,398.22 from the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs, while successful against Mr. McEnery, were only awarded $2,500 in costs from him, as most of their litigation expenses were attributable to the unsuccessful claim against the law firm.

The court denied the plaintiffs' request for a Sanderson order, which would have made Mr. McEnery responsible for the law firm's costs, finding it would not be just or fair given the plaintiffs' deliberate decision to pursue the law firm and the distinct nature of the claims.

The respondent, Gady Sirota, brought a motion to remove Gonen Snir as counsel for the applicant, Bracha Yocheved Sirota, alleging a conflict of interest due to a prior close personal relationship and the exchange of confidential information relevant to the matrimonial proceeding.

The court found that Mr. Snir had a close personal relationship with Mr. Sirota and received confidential information, including advice on marital difficulties, which created a clear conflict of interest.

Despite the applicant's argument regarding her right to counsel of choice and language barriers, the court ordered the removal of Mr. Snir as counsel, emphasizing the integrity of the judicial system over the right to chosen counsel in this instance.

The Applicant sought three orders: to declare a Small Claims Court decision a nullity, to have a motion to strike defences heard by the Superior Court, and to transfer two Small Claims Court actions to the Superior Court.

The Applicant alleged judicial bias in the Small Claims Court.

The Superior Court dismissed the application, finding it was not properly before the court under Rule 14.05(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as it was essentially an interlocutory appeal not yet ripe for the Divisional Court.

The court also found no new facts to warrant transferring the Small Claims Court actions to the Superior Court, despite the Applicant's concerns about fairness, noting other Deputy Judges were available.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his action arising from his removal from a KISS concert held in Ottawa.

The motion judge dismissed the action pursuant to Rules 57.03(2) and 60.12 of the Rules of Civil Procedure on the grounds that the appellant had not complied with the Rules and had failed to pay outstanding costs awards.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that the motion judge properly exercised her discretion in balancing the interests of justice against the general principle that matters should be heard on their merits, particularly given the appellant's deliberate disregard of court orders and costs awards.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from the dismissal of the plaintiff's action against Gene Simmons and Canadian Tire Centre (CTC) due to the plaintiff's continuous non-compliance and disrespectful conduct.

The court fixed partial indemnity costs payable by the self-represented plaintiff to Gene Simmons in the amount of $5,108.03 and to CTC in the amount of $13,021.82, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The court found the plaintiff's actions, including failure to approve a draft order, requesting unnecessary case conferences, and re-issuing a rejected amended statement of claim, unnecessarily lengthened the proceedings and increased costs for the defendants.

The defendants, Gene Simmons and Canadian Tire Centre, brought motions to dismiss the plaintiff's action due to his repeated failure to pay costs orders and non-compliance with court rules and orders.

The plaintiff, Byeongheon Lee, a self-represented litigant, had outstanding costs orders of $5,500 and $500, and had failed to attend multiple case conferences.

The court granted the motions, dismissing the action against Gene Simmons and Canadian Tire Centre, emphasizing the importance of abiding by civil procedure rules and court orders, even for self-represented litigants who have been afforded considerable accommodation.

The appellant attended a Kiss concert at the Canadian Tire Centre in Ottawa and was removed by security staff.

He commenced an action claiming damages for discrimination, harassment, intentional infliction of nervous shock, mental distress, loss of income, loss of reputation and loss of business.

Claims against McGhee Entertainment and Kiss were dismissed for failing to disclose a cause of action.

A motion to dismiss against Gene Simmons was granted on the basis that the sole claim was for discrimination, which is prohibited from proceeding as a standalone action under the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The appellant appealed the dismissal order against Simmons without asserting any alleged error of law.

Simmons brought a motion to quash the appeal as devoid of merit.

The plaintiff brought an action alleging he was wrongfully ejected from a concert at the request of the moving defendant due to racial discrimination, and subsequently assaulted by security staff.

The moving defendant brought a motion to dismiss the action against him, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction as the claim was based solely on an infringement of the Human Rights Code.

The court granted the motion, finding that there is no independent tort of discrimination and the Human Rights Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction over such claims.