Timothy Gleason

The appellant moved to amend the notice of appeal to clarify that relief is sought against two corporations added as parties below.

The respondent opposed due to late notice.

The Court of Appeal adjourned the appeal and cross-appeal, ordering the motion to amend to be heard in writing with a set schedule for submissions.

Costs were reserved to the disposition of the motion, and the panel remained seized of the motion but not the main appeal.

The appellant appealed a judgment granting the respondent lawyers their claim for unpaid legal fees and dismissing his counterclaim for solicitor's negligence.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in his findings regarding the necessity of the legal services and the lawyers' alleged negligence in handling settlements and a Mareva injunction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's conclusions were fully supported by the evidence and there was no error in principle.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment order dismissing its claim.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the discoverability of the claim was a genuine issue requiring a trial.

The Court noted there was no evidence the appellant suffered loss or damage before selling the property in March 2010.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing its claims against the respondents for allegedly agreeing to engage in unlawful conduct.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge correctly concluded the allegations were based entirely on assumptions, speculation, and embellishment.

Leave to appeal the motion judge's costs award was denied, and the respondents were awarded costs of the appeal on a substantial indemnity scale due to the appeal being entirely meritless.