Tony Antoniou

The respondents brought a motion to quash the appellant's appeal for want of jurisdiction, while the appellant brought a motion to disqualify counsel and compel document production.

The appellant sought to appeal a motion judge's order declining to schedule a motion to stay execution of a judgment from an underlying fee dispute.

The Court of Appeal held that the order declining to schedule the stay motion was interlocutory, meaning jurisdiction for the appeal lies with the Divisional Court.

The appeal was quashed, and the appellant's motion was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The court dismissed the plaintiff’s motion to amend her Statement of Claim to add Lawyers’ Professional Indemnity Company (“LawPro”) as a party, and granted the defendants’ cross-motion to strike the Statement of Claim in its entirety without leave to amend.

The court found the action to be a collateral attack on previous trial and appeal decisions, an abuse of process, and barred by the doctrine of absolute privilege.

The plaintiff’s claims, which included allegations of conspiracy, perjury, and the introduction of falsified documents, were found to be frivolous, vexatious, and disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

At a case conference in a dependants' relief application, the applicants sought the summary appointment of an Estate Trustee During Litigation (ETDL).

The court adjourned the request to allow the responding party proper notice and an opportunity to be heard, noting that the respondent's counsel lacked instructions.

The court ordered the deposit of the will on consent and urged the parties to cooperate to avoid unnecessary costs in a small estate.

The moving party, Lifeline, sought an order under section 38 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to commence an action against LawPRO to recover on a judgment against the bankrupt lawyer.

Lifeline also sought an order that any recovery belong exclusively to it.

Another creditor, Bridgepoint, supported the section 38 order but opposed the exclusivity term, arguing it should be allowed to participate and share in the proceeds.

The court granted the section 38 order but refused the exclusivity term, holding that Bridgepoint was entitled to participate in the action and share in any recovery under the responsive insurance policies, subject to proving its claim.