Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-19-00617291 DATE: 2022-01-21 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: LIFELINE LITIGATION LOANS INC., Plaintiffs – and – BRAD DUBY PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, HANSON DUBY LAWYERS, DANA HANSON, THE ESTATE OF BRADLEY DUBY, 2650281 ONTARIO INC., SAMANTHA OMLAS, Defendants

BEFORE: Justice E.M. Morgan

COUNSEL: Allan Rouben, for the Plaintiff Robin Moodie, for the Defendant, Dana Hanson

HEARD: January 21, 2022

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

[1] The Plaintiff moves for summary judgment under Rule 20.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as against the Defendant, Dana Hanson. It seeks judgment for the principal amount of $645,341.04, together with pre-judgment interest in the amount of $590,906.16, for a total of $1,236,247.20.

[2] The action arises out of loans made by the Plaintiff to the law firm Hanson Duby Lawyers (the “Firm”) in the period March-August 2018. During that time, the Defendant, Dana Hanson, was a partner of the Firm. The loans were made for the purpose of funding litigation by clients of the Firm.

[3] The proceeds of the loan were paid into the trust account of the Firm. The affidavit of the Plaintiff’s owner and president indicates that the loan agreements contained a covenant and undertaking of the Firm to abide by the irrevocable undertakings and directions signed by various clients of the Firm to repay the loans out of the proceeds of settlement of their actions.

[4] In or about August 2020, the Plaintiff discovered that various actions by clients of the Firm had been settled without repayment of the loans. The Plaintiff arranged with the Defendant, Bradley Duby, to put a plan in place for the orderly repayment of the outstanding loans.

[5] Bradley Duby died in January 2021. The Plaintiff then discovered that a number of the client signatures on its loan agreements had been forged by Bradley Duby.

[6] Counsel for Dana Hanson appeared at the hearing before me and indicated that his client takes no position on this motion. He did state for the record that there is no suggestion in the evidence that his client had anything to do with the loans or the conduct leading to this motion except that he was at the relevant time a partner of Bradley Duby and so is liable on that basis only. I can confirm the accuracy of that observation.

[7] As a partner of the Firm at the time that the loans were made and the undertaking and covenant of the Firm were given, Dana Hanson is liable under the Partnerships Act, RSO 1990 c. P.5 for the debts and obligations reflected in those instruments. This liability attaches to a partner despite the fact that the partner did not participate in or authorize the acts of another partner on which the liability is based: Strother v. 3464921 Canada Inc., 2007 SCC 24, [2007] 2 SCR 177, at paras 105-108.

[8] Dana Hanson is apparently in bankruptcy. On January 11, 2022, Associate Justice Ilchenko made an Order lifting the stay of proceedings against Dana Hanson under section 69.4 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act allowing the present claim to proceed. A copy of the endorsement from that recent appearance has been filed in the record by Plaintiff’s counsel.

[9] Plaintiff’s counsel has advised me that the other Defendants in the action are either insolvent and in receivership or bankrupt or, in the case of the Defendant, Samantha Omlas, have received notice of the present motion and have indicated that they take no position.

[10] The motion materials filed by Plaintiff’s counsel are clear and self-explanatory. They establish the Plaintiff’s entitlement to the judgment that it seeks.

[11] Plaintiff’s counsel seeks costs on a partial indemnity basis in the all-inclusive amount of $29,256.19. The matter was complex and involved some investigation and research. The amount sought by the Plaintiff is reasonable under the circumstances.

[12] There will be a judgment to go as submitted.

Date: January 21, 2022 Morgan J.