Who is Sandra Secord?

Sandra Secord is an Ontario lawyer with 4 court cases on record from 2017 to 2019.

What courts has Sandra Secord appeared in?

Sandra Secord has appeared in Superior Court of Justice.

How many cases has Sandra Secord handled?

Sandra Secord has 4 cases on record from 2017 to 2019.

What judges has Sandra Secord appeared before?

Sandra Secord has most frequently appeared before Justice Diamond, Justice Firestone, Justice A.M. Mullins.

Sandra Secord | Lawyer

4 total

OPFFA v. Paul Atkinson et al, 2019 ONSC 5230

A case conference was held to schedule documentary and oral discoveries.

The parties agreed to exchange Affidavits of Documents by September 30, 2019, and to conduct examinations for discovery in November 2019.

The court noted a potential issue regarding Schedule B documents that may require a further case conference if unresolved.

SCJSep 10, 2019

Respondent Counsel

OPFFA v. Paul Atkinson et al, 2018 ONSC 4328

A case conference was held to address procedural issues following previous endorsements.

The court directed the parties to draft separate orders for six prior motions.

The court also scheduled a Rule 21 motion brought by the defendant Shapiro regarding the plaintiff's Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim, and scheduled the plaintiff's renewed motion for a Mareva injunction.

Finally, the court set a timetable for written submissions regarding the Atkinson defendants' request to pay outstanding costs orders from funds held in trust.

SCJJul 13, 2018

Respondent Counsel

Scalamogna v. Di Toro, 2018 ONSC 807

The Team Lead-Civil in the Toronto Region issued an administrative endorsement assigning Justice P. Cavanagh as the case management judge for the actions and directed that a case conference be held as soon as possible.

SCJFeb 1, 2018

Respondent Counsel

The 6th Line Mofos Limited v. Stewart, Young, Hillesheim & Atlin Limited et al., 2017 ONSC 1991

The plaintiff sued the defendant appraisers for professional negligence after an arbitrator rejected their real estate appraisal, resulting in the plaintiff receiving a lower buyout price for its property interest.

The defendants brought a third party claim against the plaintiff's former lawyers, alleging the lawyers negligently represented the plaintiff during the arbitration and caused the losses.

The lawyers moved to strike the third party claim, arguing it merely alleged a failure to mitigate and was barred by issue estoppel.

The defendants cross-moved to amend the claim and add another law firm as a third party.

The court struck the portions of the third party claim that amounted to a failure to mitigate the initial loss caused by the appraisal.

However, the court allowed the broader claims regarding the lawyers' negligent representation at the arbitration to proceed, finding they disclosed a tenable cause of action.

The court also granted the defendants leave to add the proposed third parties.

Respondent Counsel