B E T W E E N:
CITATION: Stewart Title v. Hutchinson et. al., 2026 ONSC 4190
STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, Plaintiff
-and-
JULIAN HUTCHINSON and HUTCH LAW, Defendants
BEFORE: C. MacLeod RSJ
COUNSEL: Renée Brosseau and Oliver Flis for the plaintiff (moving party)
HEARD: July 17, 2026 – in writing
ENDORSEMENT
1This is a motion for summary judgment.
2The defendant is a now disbarred lawyer who operated a law firm in Ottawa.
3This action arises from a real estate transaction in which the defendant acted for the vendors and received the purchase funds. Although the transaction was closed in October of 2023 and title was transferred to the purchasers, the defendant failed to pay municipal taxes or the first and second mortgages owed by the vendors. The purchasers were therefore the subject of sale proceedings by the first mortgagee.
4Fortunately for the purchasers, they had obtained title insurance. The plaintiff, title insurer, obtained clear title for the purchasers after paying the taxes and retiring the outstanding mortgage debts. The total paid by the title insurer was $101,484.38.
5The plaintiff sued to recover the amount paid and also claimed punitive damages in the amount of $100,000.00. Although duly served with the statement of claim on April 11, 2025, neither the individual defendant nor his law firm defended the action.
6As noted above, on March 5, 2025 the defendant’s licence to practice law was revoked. See Law Society of Ontario v Hutchinson, 2025 ONLSTH 30. It does not appear that Mr. Hutchinson responded to the Tribunal as he was not in attendance. Moreover, the allegations of professional misconduct which gave rise to the hearing and to revocation of his licence did not include the incident involved in this claim. It appears the solicitor had engaged in a pattern of defrauding clients, falsifying documents and misappropriating funds.
7I refer to the Tribunal proceeding because it might be argued that disciplinary action and the loss of his licence is sufficient condemnation so that punitive damages are not appropriate.
Simply because the plaintiff asks for punitive damages and the action is undefended, does not mean the court will automatically award the amount sought. Punitive damages remain an extraordinary remedy because they are “punitive” and are more than the amount required to make the plaintiff whole.
8Punitive damages may be awarded when the defendant’s conduct “represents a marked departure from the ordinary standards of decent behaviour”, is “malicious, oppressive or high handed” and if damages and other remedies are insufficient to accomplish punishment, deterrence and denunciation. Even if punitive damages are awarded, however, they must be proportionate and an amount “rationally required to punish the defendant's misconduct”. See Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co., 2002 SCC 18, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 595 and Boucher v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp., 2014
ONCA 419.
9Although neither Stewart Title nor the purchasers were clients of the defendant, he nevertheless owed them a fiduciary duty of good faith. Misappropriation of trust funds or purchase monies earmarked for particular purposes strikes at the heart of the trust that is central to the duty of solicitors as officers of the court and central to the trust that is necessary for the functioning of real estate and other transactions.
10I have no hesitation in finding that punitive damages are appropriate on the facts of this case. I would not award $100,000.00. An appropriate amount in this case would be $25,000.00 which is approximately 25% of the plaintiff’s actual damages.
11The plaintiff is entitled to pre-judgment interest on the compensatory damages but not on the punitive damages which were not due until awarded. The plaintiff is entitled to substantial indemnity costs in accordance with the bill of costs, filed.
12In conclusion, I have signed the default judgment as described above.
Justice C. MacLeod
Date: July 17, 2026