Ryan Mitchell Naimark

The appellants appealed a summary judgment order finding that their debt to the respondents survived bankruptcy due to fraud and breach of fiduciary duty.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the appellant physician breached his fiduciary duty to the respondent patients by falsely assuring them their investment was safe.

The appeal was dismissed on the merits, but the costs awarded by the motion judge were reduced to exclude costs from related proceedings.

The appellant sued his insurer for a fire loss but was subsequently convicted of arson.

Despite having a legal opinion that his criminal appeal had merit, he agreed to settle the civil action by a consent dismissal without costs.

His criminal convictions were later quashed on appeal and the charges withdrawn.

He moved to set aside the civil settlement and consent order, arguing common mistake and fresh evidence.

The motion judge dismissed the motion.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, emphasizing the principle of finality in litigation and noting that the appellant knew his appeal had merit when he chose to settle.

The appellant appealed a trial decision dismissing his claim regarding a damaged sculpture.

The trial judge found that the purported assignment of the sculpture to the appellant was invalid under s. 53(1) of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, as the sculpture had been pledged to the respondent as collateral for an outstanding debt.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings, including the valuation of the sculpture based on expert testimony and the conclusion that the respondent owed no duty of care to the appellant when the sculpture was damaged.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant physician appealed a penalty order from the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons after admitting to professional misconduct for borrowing large sums of money from patients.

The Committee had ordered a 10-month suspension, part of which could be suspended upon making restitution of $108,000.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review, emphasizing deference to professional discipline committees.

Finding no error in principle and noting the appellant's extraordinary breach of trust, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the penalty.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal determined that the order appealed from was interlocutory, not final.

As a result, the court lacked jurisdiction and the appeal was quashed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The plaintiff appealed a Master's order dismissing her claims for special damages and loss of income due to her failure to fulfill undertakings from an examination for discovery.

By the time of the appeal, the outstanding undertakings had been fulfilled.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Master's order, finding that the plaintiff's conduct was not contumelious and did not cause serious prejudice to the defendant, and that denying her a day in court would allow form to triumph over substance.

The plaintiff commenced a negligence action for property damage caused by a fire shortly before the expiry of the limitation period.

During discoveries, it was revealed that the proper plaintiff was the plaintiff's corporation, not the plaintiff personally.

The plaintiff successfully moved to amend the statement of claim to substitute the corporation as the plaintiff.

The defendant appealed, arguing the amendment should not be permitted after the limitation period expired.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that Rule 5.04(2) grants the court discretion to substitute a party after a limitation period expires, provided there is no non-compensable prejudice to the defendant and special circumstances exist.