The appellants appealed an order granting summary judgment dismissing their third party claim against a lawyer.
The court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial because the evidentiary record did not establish any ongoing retainer or solicitor-client relationship between the appellants and the respondent.
A single telephone conversation with the appellants' then-lawyer was found to be merely a request for clarification about notice, not a retainer for legal advice on whether shares could be transferred without unanimous shareholder consent.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
