COURT FILE NO. : CV-9283/15
DATE: 20220929
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN: )
MUHAMMAD FARID and NASEEM FARID ) Unrepresented
Plaintiffs (Moving Parties) )
-and- )
GERALD BRUNT aka GERALD B. BRUNT ) R. McDonald, for the
) Defendants
Defendants (Responding Parties) )
) HEARD virtually: August 23, 2022
REASONS FOR DECISION: PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED NOTICE
OF MOTION TO AMEND the AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM
S. WOODLEY, J.
- This motion brought by the Plaintiff seeks:
i. an Order to grant leave to amend the “Amended Statement of Claim” pursuant to Rule 26.01 and Rule 1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure without awarding costs and disbursements against the Plaintiffs;
ii. validating service of the Amended Amended Statement of Claim; and
iii. in the alternative, if leave is denied, a dismissal of the motion without costs.
Facts
The within claim relates to the Plaintiffs’ attempted purchase of property municipally known as 26 Garrard Road, Whitby, Ontario (the property), originally scheduled to close on September 27, 2013.
The Defendant is the solicitor who was retained by the Plaintiffs with respect to the purchase of the property.
The Plaintiffs did not complete the purchase of the property on the scheduled closing date, any extended closing date, or at all.
The Porteous Action
On October 10, 2013, the Plaintiff Mr. Farid commenced an action against the seller of the property Lynn Porteous (“the Porteous action”).
By the Statement of Claim in the Porteous action, the Plaintiff sought specific performance of the agreement of purchase and sale amongst other relief.
Ms. Porteous delivered a Statement of Defence and Counterclaim to the action and Mr. Farid delivered a Reply and Defence to Counterclaim.
Both Mr. Farid and Ms. Porteous moved for summary judgment which motions were heard by Regional Senior Justice Edwards on November 25, 2014.
By the motion for summary judgment, Mr. Farid sought specific performance of the agreement and other relief, and Ms. Porteous sought a dismissal of the action and payment of the costs incurred with respect to the failed closing to be set-off against the $5,000 deposit paid by Mr. Farid.
By his Reasons for Judgment on November 28, 2014, Justice Edwards granted judgment in Ms. Porteous’ favour, awarded the costs claimed on the failed closing totaling $4,200.00 (with the balance of $800 to be returned to the Plaintiff). As for costs of the motion/action, RSJ Edwards awarded Ms. Porteous $4,000 inclusive set off against the $800 due to the Plaintiff, resulting in a final payment due by Mr. Farid to Ms. Porteous of $3,200.
Mr. Farid appealed RSJ Edwards decision to the Court of Appeal for Ontario. The appeal was heard and dismissed on June 5, 2015.
The Plaintiffs’ Claim Against Mr. Brunt
Mr. Farid commenced the within action against Mr. Brunt by Statement of Claim issued on August 21, 2015.
Mr. Brunt delivered his Statement of Defence on October 9, 2015.
Mr. Farid delivered his sworn Affidavit of Documents and productions on June 29, 2016.
Mr. Brunt delivered his sworn Affidavit of Documents and productions on December 9, 2016.
Examinations for Discovery
Mr. Brunt was examined on January 26, 2017.
Mr. and Mrs. Farid were examined on February 2, 2017.
Amended Statement of Claim
On March 1, 2018, ON CONSENT, the Plaintiffs issued an Amended Statement of Claim. The Amended Statement of Claim is 69 pages long.
On March 2, 2018, the Plaintiffs served a Jury Notice.
Mr. Brunt elected not to file an amended Statement of Defence in response to the Amended Statement of Claim.
Action Set Down for Trial
- The action was set down for trial by the Plaintiffs on or about March 23, 2018, through delivery of a Trial Record.
Pre-trials and Trial Scheduling
On September 28, 2018, Justice Shaughnessy conducted the first pre-trial and ordered that a second pre-trial be held.
On May 3, 2019, Justice Shaughnessy conducted a second pre-trial.
On June 27, 2019, the parties attended trial scheduling court and the trial was set for the November 2019 sittings at the Oshawa Superior Court of Justice.
November 2019 Trial
- The parties attended the Oshawa courthouse on November 18, 2019, and a jury was selected. However, the trial did not proceed as no judge was available.
November 2020 Fixed Trial Date
Mr. Farid sought a fixed trial date which was provided on consent and the trial was scheduled for November 16, 2020.
Due to the global pandemic, the trial did not proceed.
October 2022 Fixed Trial Date
On October 13, 2021, the parties attended a case conference before Justice Sutherland who issued an endorsement and scheduled the trial of this action as a backup to another jury trial scheduled for the week of October 10, 2022. Justice Sutherland also ordered that the parties attend a further pre-trial.
The trial of this action is currently scheduled to proceed on October 11, 2022 as a back up to a criminal jury trial.
The Plaintiffs’ Draft Amended Amended Statement of Claim
On February 13, 2022, the Plaintiffs delivered a draft Amended Amended Statement of Claim despite never indicating that they would seek to further amend their claim.
The Amended Amended Statement of Claim is 109 pages long (40 pages longer than the Amended Statement of Claim) which the defendant alleges contains the following new causes of action and/or allegations and/or particulars:
i. breach of fiduciary duty (paras 5, 399, 400, 401, 407, and 410);
ii. breach of section 6(6) of the Solicitors Act (paras 5 and 402);
iii. a new allegation that the Plaintiffs retained Mr. Brunt a second time on September 30, 2013, to provide legal services regarding the Porteous action (para 336);
iv. a new allegation that Mr. Brunt advised the Plaintiffs to make “multiple and different claims” against Ms. Porteous in the Porteous action (para 337);
v. a new allegation that Mr. Brunt “withheld causes of action” from the Plaintiffs that they could have pleaded against Ms. Porteous in the Porteous action (paras 338 and 346);
vi. a new allegation that Mr. Brunt withheld evidence from the Plaintiffs about his alleged failure to obtain discharges of the mortgages registered on title to the Property (paras 338 and 346);
vii. Mr. Brunt act in a conflict of interest in providing the Plaintiffs with litigation advice regarding the Porteous action (para 339);
viii. Mr. Brunt “contemplated miscarriage” of Mrs. Farid’s (then) unborn baby and “informed Mr. Farid that Mrs. Farid will most likely have a miscarriage of the baby (para 370);
ix. Mr. Brunt breached his fiduciary duty by, among other things, withholding causes of action and evidence against Ms. Porteous in the Porteous action (para 400); and
x. Mr. Brunt committed a breach of trust (para 411).
- The Defendant refused to consent to the issuance of the Draft Amended Amended Statement of Claim.
Further Case Conference – April 29, 2022
On April 29, 2022, the parties attended a further case conference before Justice Sutherland to address the scheduling issues raised by the Plaintiffs’ draft Amended Amended Statement of Claim.
Justice Sutherland noted by his April 29, 2022 Endorsement as follows:
i. this matter is set for a five-week civil jury trial commencing October 11, 2022;
ii. the Plaintiffs wish to amend their pleading and the requested amended pleading is over 100 pages in length;
iii. a long motion is required – and a timetable was set for the filing of materials;
iv. the Plaintiffs were heading out of the country until August 20, 2022 and the motion will need to be heard following August 20, 2022; and
v. the motion Judge will determine if the trial dates will be vacated or a further conference may be requested to determine if the trial dates can be maintained.
- The parties appeared before me on August 23, 2022 to argue the motion. Mr. Farid appeared on behalf of both Plaintiffs.
Issues
- The issues to determine on this motion are:
i. Should leave be granted to hear the motion; and
ii. If leave is granted to hear the motion is granted, should the proposed Amended Amended Statement of Claim be issued, in whole or in part?
- The Defendant submits that the following sub-issues are included within issue ii:
iii. does the proposed Amended Amended Statement of Claim seek to raise new causes of action barred by the operation of the Limitations Act, 2002?
iv. does the proposed Amended Amended Statement of Claim amount to an abuse of process?
v. is the proposed Amended Amended Statement of Claim drafted in a manner that the court should disallow the proposed amendments?
Determination of Issues
- For the reasons that follow, leave to bring the motion is granted and the relief sought to further amend the Amended Statement of Claim is granted in part subject to certain conditions.
Analysis
i. Should Leave be Granted to Bring the Motion?
The Plaintiffs did not seek leave to bring the motion as required by Rule 48.01(1). However, the Plaintiffs are unrepresented. The Notice of Motion clearly seeks to amend the pleadings following the filing of the trial record, but prior to the commencement of trial in this matter. The Defendants were aware that the Plaintiffs required leave to bring the motion and were also aware of the relief being sought by the motion. In these circumstances, and in accordance with the overriding principles set out at Rule 2.01, I see no prejudice to the Defendant in allowing the Plaintiffs to seek leave orally at the hearing.
As for whether the Plaintiffs should be granted leave to bring their motion to amend, Rule 48.04(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure states that, subject to certain exceptions (that do not apply in the present case), a party who has set an action down for trial shall not initiate or continue any motion, or form of discovery, without leave of the court.
The test to be applied when considering granting leave is set out in Fulop v. Corrigan, 2020 ONSC 1648, [2020] O.J. No. 1227 at para 77 (S.C.J.), as follows:
i. what the party seeking leave knew when they delivered the trial record;
ii. whether there has been a substantial or unexpected change in the parties circumstances;
iii. the purpose of the request for leave;
iv. the nature of the relief requested;
v. whether the party opposing leave would suffer prejudice;
vi. whether the relief sought would likely be granted if leave were granted.
Further, the principle set out in Rule 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure dictates that the court shall grant leave to amend a pleading on motion at any stage of an action, so long as such terms are just, and the leave to amend would not result in a party facing resulting prejudice that could not be compensated for by costs or by adjournment.
Given the principle in Rule 26.01, I find that test for granting leave in Fulop to be quite low. Thus, the standard in Rule 26.01 permits the amendment of pleadings at any time with few exceptions. So long as the parties are not facing resulting prejudice, and the amendments proposed are just, Rule 26.01 permits the amendments.
Therefore, applying the test as outlined in Fulop while simultaneously considering the mandatory provisions of Rule 26.01 relating to amendments to pleadings, I find as follows:
i. the Plaintiffs are self-represented and, by their materials, seek to amend the pleadings to fill evidentiary gaps, to insert headings for the purpose of providing “clarity” to the pleadings, and to identify two statutes that they claim are applicable to the action;
ii. the proposed amendments are primarily evidentiary in nature, but may have substantive and/or procedural effects on the trial (depending on the trial judge’s determination of whether (i) the pleadings are overly complex and/or convoluted such that the jury must be struck; and (ii) the pleadings have raised a new cause of action that is statute barred);
iii. the Defendants will not suffer prejudice that cannot be compensated by an adjournment, costs, or other conditions; and
iv. given the mandatory language of Rule 26.01, it is probable that the relief requested by the notice of motion will be granted, at least in part, subject to certain conditions.
- In the circumstances, and for the foregoing reasons, leave is granted pursuant to Rules 2.01 and 48.04, for the Plaintiffs to bring the within motion to amend the pleadings.
ii. Should the Relief Sought by the Motion be Granted?
As for the substance of the motion, the Plaintiffs seek leave to amend their pleadings.
Rule 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure frames requests for amendments to pleadings in mandatory terms: the court must allow the amendment, unless the responding party would suffer non-compensable prejudice, the proposed pleading is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, or the proposed pleading fails to disclose a reasonable cause of action: See 158844 Ontario Ltd v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 2017 ONCA 42 at para 25, [2017] O.J. No. 241; Iroquois Falls Power Corp. v. Jacobs Canada Inc., 2009 ONCA 517, 264 O.A.C. 220, at paras 15 – 16.
a. Non-compensable Prejudice: Addition of References to “Fiduciary Duties”
The expiry of a limitation period is one form of non-compensable prejudice. A party cannot circumvent the operation of a limitation period by amending their pleadings to add additional claims after the expiry of the relevant limitation period: See Frohlick v. Pinkerton Canada Ltd, 2008 ONCA 3, at para 24, [2008] O.J. No. 17; 1100997 Ontario Ltd. v. North Elgin Centre Inc., 2016 ONCA 848, at paras 21 – 23, [2016] O.J. No. 5851; United Food and Commercial Workers Canada, Local 175 Region 6 v. Quality Meat Packers Holdings Limited, 2018 ONCA 671, at para 64, [2018] O.J. No. 3981; Davis v. East Side Mario’s Barrie, 2018 ONCA 410, at paras 31 – 32, [2018] O.J. No. 2283.
An amendment will be statute barred if it seeks to assert a new cause of action after the expiry of the applicable limitation period: Klassen v. Beausoleil, 2019 ONCA 407, at para 27, [2019] O.J. No. 2580.
The caselaw discloses a factually oriented approach to the concept of a cause of action, namely a factual situation, the existence of which entitles one person to obtain from a court a remedy against another person: Klassen at para 27, citing North Elgin at para 19 and Quality Meat Packers at para 65.
In the present case the Defendant alleges that the addition of the reference to “fiduciary duties” in the proposed Amended Amended Statement of Claim found at para 399 to 402 (page 106) and para 407 (page 108) constitutes a new cause of action that is statute barred.
I have had an opportunity to thoroughly review the Amended Statement of Claim and compared the same with the Amended Amended Statement of Claim in an effort to determine whether the reference to fiduciary duties constitutes a new claim or whether the claim already existed within the body of the Amended Statement of Claim and is now simply being “identified” for the purpose of clarification.
An amendment does not assert a new cause of action and is not impermissibly statute barred if the original pleading contains all the facts necessary to support the amendments such that the amendments simply claim additional forms of relief, or clarify the relief sought, based on the same facts as originally pleaded: Klassen at para 28 citing Dee Ferraro, at paras 4, 13-14; North Elgin Centre Inc., at paras 20-21; East Side Mario’s Barrie, at paras 31-32; Quality Meat Packers, at para 65.
An amendment will be refused when it seeks to advance, after the expiry of a limitation period, a “fundamentally different claim” based on facts not originally pleaded: Klassen at para 28 citing North Elgin at para 23.
The relevant principle is summarized in Paul M. Perell & John W. Morden, The Law of Civil Procedure in Ontario, 3rd ed. (Toronto: LexisNexis, 2017), at p. 186:
A new cause of action is not asserted if the amendment pleads an alternative claim for relief out of the same facts previously pleaded and no new facts are relied upon, or amount simply to different legal conclusions drawn from the same set of facts, or simply provide particulars of an allegation already pled or additional facts upon which the original right of action is base.
Keeping these factors in mind, the issue appears to be whether the facts contained in the Amended Statement of Claim are sufficient to support the amendments, such that the amendments simply claim additional forms of relief, or clarify the relief sought, based on the same facts originally pleaded.
More particularly, whether the facts plead by the Amended Statement of Claim support an allegation of breach of fiduciary duty or are limited to allegations of negligence and/or breach of standard of care.
It is my view that the facts plead by the Amended Statement of Claim may support an allegation of breach of fiduciary duty. As discussed at the hearing of the motion, the facts relative to prove a breach of fiduciary duty, versus a breach of standard of care, versus negligence, are nuanced and contextual. It is my further view that - given the nuanced and contextual nature of the various claims – the issue of whether a breach of fiduciary duty is supported by the Amended Statement of Claim and not otherwise statute barred by the requested amendment to the pleadings is a matter best determined by the trial judge following a full hearing. As such, leave to amend the Amended Statement of Claim to include the references to fiduciary duty is granted with determination as to whether the amendment is statute barred to be left with the trial judge.
b. Scandalous, Frivolous, or Vexatious
There are several allegations in the pleadings referring to the possibility that the Plaintiff may suffer a “miscarriage” as a result of stress caused through loss of the purchase of the property. Having reviewed the proposed amendments, I find these references to be scandalous, and to otherwise disclose no cause of action, and they shall not be allowed.
The proposed amendments are located at paragraph 370 (page 97) and paragraph 407 (page 108) - and in the event I missed any further references - all shall be struck.
c. Redundant and Repetitious
Amendments to pleadings should also not be allowed where the amendments sought are redundant and/or repetitious.
In the present case, the pleadings were already amended on consent of the Defendant, and the Amended Statement of Claim is 69 pages in length. With the proposed further amendments, the Amended Amended Statement of Claim will be approximately 109 pages in length.
There is a great amount of redundancy and repetition in the pleadings. However, much of the redundancy and repetition appears in the body of the AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM – which (again) was amended on consent of the Defendants.
Attached to these Reasons for Decision, as Schedule A, is summary in the form of a chart that notes the topic and occurrence of facts and issues contained in the Amended Amended Statement of Claim.
What is crystal clear from any review is that the Amended Statement of Claim is– by itself – rife with redundant and repetitive information.
At this point the Court cannot par down the requested amendments to streamline an otherwise overburdened Amended Statement of Claim without defeating the Plaintiff’s request for “headings” for the purpose of clarification and simplicity. To attempt to omit certain amendments due to redundancy and repetition at this stage of the pleadings is an impossible task as the Amended Statement of Claim is already rife with redundant and repetitious statements.
The Plaintiffs seek to insert “headings”, references to statutes, and facts to “streamline and clarify” the Amended Statement of Claim. While I am of the view that the amendments merely clutter an already overly cluttered claim – I am content to allow the remaining amendments to proceed, on the condition that the Plaintiffs reconsider having the matter tried by jury. Further, given the complexity of the proceeding and the over cluttered and complicated Amended Statement of Claim, and soon to be Amended Amended Statement of Claim – in the event the Plaintiffs do not agree that the jury should be struck, leave is granted to the Defendants to bring a motion either prior to trial before any judge or before the trial judge to strike the jury. It is my non-binding view that the Amended Amended Statement of Claim places too great of a burden upon any trial judge to adequately and concisely explain the contents therein to a jury within the confines and timelines of a trial. Further, the Amended Amended Statement of Claim is overly complex and is best suited for a judge alone trial.
As the Plaintiffs shall be allowed to proceed with much of their requested amendments, the Defendants shall be granted the right to obtain an adjournment of the upcoming trial date to file an Amended Statement of Defence, to complete further discovery of the Plaintiffs on the amendments to the Amended Statement of Claim, and/or to further prepare for trial.
Determination and Order
- For the reasons outline above, this Court Orders as follows:
i. leave is granted to allow the Plaintiffs to bring the within motion to amend the Amended Statement of Claim;
ii. all proposed amendments to the Amended Statement of Claim that reference “miscarriage” are struck as being scandalous, and for otherwise not disclosing a cause of action (particularly paragraph 370 (page 97) and paragraph 407 (page 108) and including any further reference to “miscarriage”;
iii. the remaining proposed amendments to the Amended Statement of Claim are allowed on the following conditions:
i. the Plaintiffs shall advise the Defendant by email within three (3) days whether they seek to withdraw the jury notice, which email (if it seeks to withdraw the jury) shall be filed with the Court and shall be deemed sufficient notice to strike the jury;
ii. in the event the Plaintiffs continue to seek trial by jury, the Defendant is granted leave to bring a motion to strike the jury notice, said motion to be heard by any judge of this Court (prior to trial) or by the trial judge;
iii. the Defendant shall be granted the right to file an Amended Statement of Defence and shall have 20 days to prepare, serve and file any Amended Statement of Defence;
iv. An adjournment of the trial shall be granted upon request of the Defendant and the trial shall be re-scheduled to a date to be set by the trial coordinator; and
v. the Defendant shall have the right to further discover the Plaintiffs as to the Amended Amended Statement of Claim, and the Plaintiffs shall pay the reasonable fees and disbursements incurred by the Defendants in conducting any additional discovery occasioned by the amendments to the Amended Statement of Claim on a substantial indemnity basis.
- Although the Plaintiffs are the successful parties and would normally be entitled to their costs of the motion, given that the Plaintiffs are seeking leave of the Court to amend their pleadings at the edge of trial, which amendments will cause delay, upset and most likely necessitate an adjournment of the trial, there shall be no costs awarded to either party.
Justice S. J. Woodley
Farid v. Brunt – Schedule A
Topic & Occurrence (paragraph & page number)
Topic
Occurrence
Details of the property & significance to the Farid family as first-time home buyers with specific needs (religious, renting potential, schools nearby, family near, etc.) & effects on Farid – 26 Garrard
Para 14 (page 8), para 56-58 (page 20), para 68-73 (page 22-23), para 182-199 (page 51-54), para 201 (page 54), para 207 (page 56), para 212 (page 57), para 364-369 (pages 96-97), para 373 (page 99), para 378 (page 101)
Details of the APS between Farid & Poteous
Page 7, para 70-75 (page 23-25),
Broad details of the process of purchase and the closing of the property – 26 Garrard
Paras 19, 20 (page 8-9), para 29, 30, para 269-270 (page 69)
Details of financing for property – 26 Garrard
Paras 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 (pages 8-9),
Anticipatory breach of APS by Farid
Paras 107-108 (page 31), paras 119-135 (pages 34-36), para 165-167 (pages 45-46), para 329 (page 84), para 316 (page 80), para 327-329 (pages 83-84),
Alleged actions of Brunt – “D failed to inform P that P needs funds to close the property” (from either Farid or the Lender)
Para 10 (page 7), para 22, 23, 24 (page 10), para 314-315 (page 80), paras 360-361 (page 95)
Issues of Closing 26 Garrard Road - P informed D to close the property on September 27, 2013 (“instructed the D… to close the Property on September 27, 2013 regardless what the P and D had to do to close the property”) + claims Brunt failed to complete closing despite instructions to do so + requesting extension for closing
Para 13 (page 8), para 21 (page 9), para 80 (page 26), paras 115-117, paras 119-123 (pages 32-34), paras 125-135 (pages 34-36), para 167 (page 46), para 231 (page 61), para 309 (page 79), para 315 (page 80), para 325-326 (page 82), para 330-334 (pages 84-85), para 345 (h, i) (page 90), paras 350-351 (pages 92-93), para 396 (page 104)
Requirement to have a furnace and heater at the property – did not know it was not functioning, furnace info in the APS and lack of instructions on how to proceed
Para 32 (page 12), para 142 (page 38), para 164 (page 45), para 171-173 (pages 46-47), para 176-178 (pages 48-49)
Farid claims that Brunt failed to obtain access from the Sellers solicitor (Phillips) to conduct a property inspection (and failed to take action to access the property when denied by the seller or sellers’ solicitor)
Para 34 (page 13), para 112-114 (pages 31-32), para 143 (page 38), para 156 (page 42), para 317 (page 81)
Alleged actions of Brunt – D failed to “obtain access to property for inspection for the mortgage lender”
Para 33-34 (page 13), paras 109-114 (pages 31-32), paras 156-160 (pages 42-43), para 317 (page 81), paras 319-325 (pages 81-82), para 345(g) (page 90),
Alleged actions of Brunt – D’s responsibility to obtain funds from the lender (and D failed to inform P of failure to obtain funds + consequences of failing to obtain funds)
Para 15 (page 8), para 23-26 (page 10), para 35 (page 13), paras 94-98 (pages 28-29), paras 99-106 (pages 29-31), paras 103-107 (pages 30-31), para 236 (page 63), paras 314-315 (page 80), para 318-319 (page 81)
Reference to the decision and evidence of the Farid v. Poteous case before RSJ Edwards
• Brunt informed Seller’s solicitor that the P will commence action for specific performance and relief from forfeiture
• Brunt failed to explain to Farid the risks and consequences of losing the action for specific performance and relief for forfeiture
• Brunt failed to take action to get matter dismissed
Para 38, 39 (page 14), paras 76-80 (page 25-26), para 147-153 (page 39-41), para 161 (page 44), paras 216-218 (pages 58-59), para 336-337 (page 85), paras 349-350 (pages 92-93), paras 374 (page 100), page 376-377 (pages 100-101), para 398 (page 105), para 400 (page 106)
Farid claims he sued Poteous on Brunt’s advice + consequences of the Farid v. Poteous matter
Para 36 (page 109), para 148 (page 40), para 150-153 (pages 40-41), para 160 (page 44), para 175 (page 48), paras 349-350 (pages 92-93)
Farid claims that Brunt never informed him to seek independent legal advice after “Brunt failed to close the property” as instructed (conflict, negligence, fiduciary duty)
Para 174 (page 47), para 339 (page 86), para 348 (page 91-92), para 170 (page 46), para 174 (page 47), para 339 (page 86),
Alleged actions of Brunt – D failed to inform P of what was “abnormal” about the APS
Para 40 (page 15), para 141 (page 37)
Farid mentioned to Brunt that it was his first closing and did not know the procedure
Para 182-185 (page 50), para 354-356 (page 94)
Alleged actions of Brunt – D failed to communicate “any issues related with the property closing to the P”
Para 49 (page 18)
Farid claims that Brunt had Farid’s funds to close the property on September 27, 2013
Para 27, 28 (page 11), para 308 (page 79)
Connection between Brunt and Lender
Para 31 (page 12)
Purchase and details of replacement property – 180 Garrard Road
Para 59-67 (page 20-21), para 74, para 375 (page 100), paras 379-381 (page 102), para 395 (page 104)
Farid claims Brunt has significant experience in real estate law – 40 years’ experience (and Farid claims Brunt lacked experience in the issues relating to real estate)
Paras 88-90 (page 27), para 355 (page 94)
Farid claims Brunt charged him for legal services without explaining what the charges are for
Para 92-93 (page 28), para 359 (page 95), paras 362-363 (page 95), paras 357-359 (pages 94-95), para 362-364 (pages 95-96),
Farid claims the relationship and dealings between Farid and Brunt were based on trust – no retainer was signed between them but that services will be provided (no instructions between them)
Para 82-84 (page 26-27), paras 119-135 (pages 34-36), para 191 (pages 51-52), paras 232 (page 62), para 238-264 (pages 64-68)
Farid claims that Brunt failed to document services provided and to provide documents to Farid
Para 86-87 (page 27), para 144-146 (pages 38-39)
Farid claims that Brunt failed to inform Farid of private mortgages on 26 Garrard Road – failed to discharge the private mortgages
Paras 94-98 (pages 28-29), paras 145-146 (page 39), para 271-303 (pages 72-76), para 338 (page 85-86), para 340 (page 86), para 345(b, e, f) (page 89),
“Settlement proposal” information
Para 138-141 (pages 36-38)
Farid informed Brunt, that Brunt “made a mess of things” and caused him damage due to the closing (claims failure to exercise proper and reasonable judgement, the standard of care, duty of care, negligence, stress, losses, damage, etc).
Para 205-211 (page 55-57), para 222-230 (pages 60-61), para 233-235 (page 62), para 238-264 (pages 64-68), para 338 (pages 85-86), paras 364-373 (pages 96-98), para 374-375 (page 100), paras 398-412 (pages 106-109)
Farid claims he never ended representation with Brunt
Para 214-215 (page 58)
Farid claims Brunt sent requisitions to gain answers – never got answers from the served requisitions
Para 284 (page 72), para 338 (page 85), para 340(ii) (page 87), para 345 (c, d) (page 90)
USA litigation
Para 219-221 (page 59)
Missing 2nd page of the APS
Para 203-205 (page 55)
Farid informed Brunt that the Sellers solicitor was problematic and unethical
Para 202 (page 54)
Farid states certain paras are “incorporated herein by inference”
Para 15, 99, 100, 101, 103, 104, 105 (cited at para 314 (page 80)), para 340 (cited in paras 341-344 (pages 88-89)), paras 340-345 (cited in paras 346 (page 91)), paras 340-347 (cited in paras 346-347 (page 91))
Mention of fiduciary duties
Para 399-401 (page 106), para 407 (page 108)