Tanya A. Pagliaroli

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Justice Vella dated July 12, 2021.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs of the motion to be determined at the appeal.

The defendant lawyer brought a motion for summary judgment to stay the plaintiff's solicitor negligence action as an abuse of process.

The plaintiff sued her former family lawyer, alleging negligence in the negotiation of a separation agreement regarding spousal support, but had not first sought to set aside or vary the agreement under the Family Law Act.

The court granted the motion and stayed the action, holding that a family law litigant must exhaust statutory remedies against their former spouse before pursuing a civil action for damages against their lawyer to avoid circumventing the family law statutory scheme.

The plaintiff forensic accounting firm brought an action for unpaid professional fees against a former client and her lawyer.

The client alleged there was an oral agreement capping the fees at $40,000, and brought a crossclaim against her lawyer for professional negligence, alleging he failed to secure her ex-husband's assets during her family law dispute.

The court found no credible evidence of an agreement to limit the accounting fees and ordered the client and lawyer to pay the outstanding balance.

The court dismissed the crossclaim, finding the lawyer did not breach the standard of care, the alleged negligence did not cause the loss, and the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

Following a successful trial where the plaintiff recovered a $1.5M fee and defeated a counterclaim, the plaintiff sought costs of $680,152.55.

The defendant argued the plaintiff's offer to settle was served 1.5 hours late and thus did not trigger the mandatory cost consequences of Rule 49.10.

The court applied a holistic approach under Rule 49.13, finding the offer provided adequate time to assess risk in an all-or-nothing case.

The court exercised its residual discretion and awarded the plaintiff its requested costs.

The case involved a claim by Scotia Capital Inc. against Aphria Inc. for an "Independence Fee" under an engagement letter for financial advisory services in defending a hostile takeover bid, and a counterclaim by Aphria for defamation related to Scotia's discontinuation of analyst coverage.

The court found that Scotia successfully defended Aphria against the takeover bid, entitling it to the Independence Fee.

The court dismissed Aphria's defense arguments of lack of causality and repudiation.

The court also dismissed Aphria's counterclaim for defamation, finding no evidence that the discontinuation of coverage lowered Aphria's reputation or caused economic loss.

The plaintiff, who was rendered paraplegic following spinal surgery, brought a motion to amend his statement of claim to add his former family doctor and chiropractor as defendants, and to add new allegations against the defendant surgeon.

The surgeon brought a cross-motion to dismiss the action for delay.

The court dismissed the cross-motion, finding the delay was not contumelious and caused no actual prejudice.

The court denied the plaintiff's request to add new allegations against the surgeon, ruling they were statute-barred new causes of action.

However, the court allowed the addition of the family doctor and chiropractor, finding the claims against them were not reasonably discoverable until the plaintiff's counsel obtained and reviewed the family doctor's medical chart.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend his Statement of Claim to substitute the names of a doctor and a nurse for 'Doctor Doe 1' and 'Nurse Doe 1' on the basis of misnomer, after the expiry of the limitation period.

The proposed defendant doctor opposed the motion, arguing it was an attempt to circumvent the limitation period.

The court applied the 'litigating finger' test and found that the proposed defendant's insurer, having received the Statement of Claim, would have known the plaintiff intended to sue the emergency room physician who treated him.

The court granted the motion, concluding it was a case of misnomer and no non-compensable prejudice would result.

The defendant brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to answer questions refused during her examination for discovery in a wrongful dismissal and whistleblower retaliation action.

The questions sought the identities of confidential informants who provided the plaintiff with information about her termination and an internal investigation.

The court upheld the plaintiff's refusals regarding her termination, finding the identities irrelevant.

However, the court ordered the plaintiff to disclose the source of her information regarding the HR director's presentation, as the communication did not meet the Wigmore criteria for common law privilege.

The appellant agreed to sell her home at 45 Moore Avenue, Toronto to the respondents.

Between execution of the Agreement of Purchase and Sale and closing, neighbouring property owners asserted ownership of a two-foot-wide strip of the driveway.

The respondents refused to close, claiming the appellant could not convey clear title to the entire driveway.

The appellant sued for damages; the respondents counterclaimed for return of their deposit.

The motion judge found in favour of the respondents, determining that the APS represented the appellant owned all of what visually appeared to be the functioning private driveway, and that the title defect was significant enough to justify refusing to close.

The appellant appealed, arguing the APS only required sale of a seven-foot-wide driveway (per the 1987 survey) and that any defect was not significant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs after successfully resisting the defendants' motion for summary judgment in a property line dispute.

The defendants argued for no costs or partial indemnity.

The court found that the defendants did not act unreasonably in bringing their summary judgment motion, despite its ultimate failure, and therefore declined to award substantial indemnity costs under Rule 20.06.

The court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs of $25,000, inclusive of taxes and disbursements, noting that much of the work would have been necessary for trial regardless.

The court issued a costs endorsement following its refusal to dismiss an application for assessment of solicitor's accounts due to inordinate delay.

The delay was primarily institutional, not attributable to the clients.

The clients were awarded partial indemnity costs of $6500, inclusive of HST and disbursements, despite seeking $7835.08 plus an additional $2500.

The reduction accounted for a period of client-attributable delay and some duplication of effort with a prior application.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for inducing breach of contract, nuisance, and trespass arising from a property line dispute.

The defendants had moved a fence onto the plaintiff's driveway shortly before the scheduled closing of the plaintiff's sale of her property, causing the purchasers to refuse to close.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding that the conflicting evidence regarding the historical location of the fence and the defendants' intent to procure a breach of contract raised genuine issues of credibility that required a trial.

The solicitors brought a motion to dismiss the clients' application for an assessment of accounts due to delay.

The accounts related to services provided between 2002 and 2012, and the assessment was ordered in 2012.

The court found that while the delay of over five years was inordinate and posed a risk of prejudice to the solicitors, it was not inexcusable on the part of the clients.

The delay was primarily institutional, caused by the actions and decisions of the assessment office.

The motion to dismiss was therefore dismissed.

The moving party, in the midst of complex family trust litigation, sought leave to withdraw admissions made in a previous affidavit and to file three new affidavits.

The moving party argued the admissions regarding multi-million dollar shareholder loans were made inadvertently due to confusion and reliance on her former, now-deceased counsel.

The responding parties opposed, arguing the admissions were formal and the new evidence was an attempt to repair her case mid-hearing.

The court granted the motion, finding the admissions were likely inadvertent, raised a triable issue, and caused no non-compensable legal prejudice to the responding parties.

The court emphasized the need to decide the case on its true merits rather than a solicitor's or party's mistake.

The applicant sought costs on a partial indemnity scale following a decision granting declaratory relief for property access under a development agreement.

The respondent argued the application was unnecessary and sought its own costs.

The court found the applicant was the successful party, as it obtained a significant remedy allowing it to proceed with remediation.

The court fixed the applicant's costs at $58,467.33 on a partial indemnity scale, finding the time spent and hourly rates reasonable.

The applicant, a residential subdivision developer, sought an order to access Phase 2 of its development through Campania Court for remediation, servicing, and maintenance, which the City of Vaughan had blocked.

The applicant relied on common law right of access, improper exercise of municipal discretion, and a contractual right under a Development Agreement.

The court found that material facts were in dispute regarding the common law right and the exercise of discretion, requiring these claims to proceed to trial.

However, the court granted the applicant's request based on a contractual right under Section 4 of the Development Agreement, which allowed for the import and export of heavy equipment that could not safely maneuver through Phase 1 lands.

The City was ordered to facilitate this access, including removing physical barriers, but the order did not extend to hauling waste materials.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board upholding the revocation of his hospital privileges.

The revocation followed a series of incidents involving workplace harassment of a nurse and unauthorized access to her personal health records.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Appeal Board applied the correct test under the Public Hospitals Act, did not improperly reverse the burden of proof regarding the appellant's mental health claims, and reached a reasonable and proportionate decision given the egregious nature of the past misconduct.

Family members brought a medical negligence action after a hospital patient died from viral myocarditis shortly after presenting to the emergency department.

A civil jury found two treating physicians liable and awarded $600,000 in damages.

On appeal, the physicians argued the trial judge made multiple procedural and instructional errors, including permitting further discovery at trial, limiting expert evidence, improperly charging the jury on standard of care and causation, misphrasing the causation question, misdirecting the jury on agreement requirements, and refusing to poll the jury.

The Court of Appeal held that most alleged errors were unfounded and that the causation wording error in the verdict questions caused no substantial wrong because the jury was repeatedly instructed on the correct “but for” test.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff sued his former family lawyer for professional negligence arising from the drafting of a marriage contract.

He alleged the solicitor failed to advise him about a potential 'downside' or catastrophic change clause that would have protected him if his wealth declined during the marriage.

After the marriage ended, the contract was enforced and the plaintiff paid substantial sums to his spouse, which he claimed constituted damages caused by negligent legal advice.

The court found the solicitor had adequately explained the operation of the Family Law Act and equalization and met the standard of care of a reasonably competent solicitor.

The court also held that even if negligence had been established, the plaintiff failed to prove causation or damages, including claims relating to lost investment opportunities.

The applicants, who were former counsel to the respondent in a dismissed medical malpractice action, brought an application under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act to have the respondent declared a vexatious litigant.

Following the dismissal of the underlying action, the respondent had commenced three separate lawsuits against the applicants, all of which were dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court found that the respondent persistently attempted to re-litigate determined issues, failed to pay costs awards, and engaged in harassing and manipulative behaviour towards the court and counsel.

The application was granted, and the respondent was prohibited from instituting or continuing any proceedings without leave of the court.