Veronica Sylvia Marson

The plaintiff, as estate trustee of the deceased vendor's estate, sought damages for breach of contract arising from the defendant's failure to complete the purchase and sale of residential property.

The defendant was noted in default after his statement of defence was struck out.

The court found the defendant breached the agreement by failing to close on the extended closing date of 9 September 2022.

The vendor subsequently resold the property 82 days later for $70,000 less than the defendant's agreed purchase price.

The court awarded damages comprising the price differential, property taxes, utilities, home maintenance expenses, legal fees, and living expenses incurred in anticipation of closing, less the defendant's deposit with accumulated interest and pre-judgment interest.

The Applicant mother sought costs following a settled disclosure motion, while the Respondent father sought partial indemnity costs, claiming the motion was unnecessary.

The court found the father's ongoing lack of compliance and delays with financial disclosure to be unreasonable conduct.

The mother was deemed the successful party on the substantial issue of disclosure, despite the motion settling.

The court awarded the mother elevated fixed costs of $2,800, finding the father's conduct warranted such an award but did not reach the threshold of bad faith for full indemnity.

The father's request for costs was dismissed.

The applicant sought a declaration regarding the continued validity and use of a registered right of way over the respondents' properties.

The respondents argued the right of way was extinguished or abandoned due to the construction of an alternate public road, abuse of right, or implied release, and sought to modify or extinguish it.

The court found the right of way remained in full force and effect, rejecting the respondents' arguments for extinguishment or abandonment.

However, the court permitted the respondents to erect unlocked gates and signs to restrict use to deeded owners and their guests.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for parenting time with his two children, having been denied contact by the respondent mother since April 2021 following an alleged domestic assault.

The mother opposed in-person contact, citing the outstanding criminal charges and allegations of family violence.

The court applied the best interests of the child test under the Divorce Act, finding that the uncorroborated allegations did not justify denying the children time with their father.

The court ordered temporary supervised parenting time for the father, gradually stepping up to unsupervised access.

The defendant Belfor moved for a declaration that audio recordings made by the plaintiff of conversations with its former lawyers were not subject to solicitor-client privilege, arguing deemed or implied waiver due to inadvertent disclosure and the plaintiff's state of mind being in issue.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no deemed waiver as legal advice was not material to the claim, and no implied waiver despite counsel's delay, emphasizing that privilege belongs to the client and no unfairness would result from its maintenance.

The applicant sought a declaration that his homeowner's insurer had a duty to defend and indemnify him in an underlying action arising from an incident at a summer camp.

The underlying claim alleged that the applicant pulled the plaintiff's head back, kneed him, and punched him, pleading both negligence and assault and battery.

The insurer denied coverage based on an intentional acts exclusion.

The court dismissed the application, finding the duty to indemnify was premature and the duty to defend was not triggered because the negligence claim was entirely derivative of the intentional tort of battery, which fell squarely within the policy's exclusion clause.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's claim for income replacement benefits, the insurer sought its expenses of the arbitration.

The arbitrator awarded the insurer its expenses, noting that the insurer was wholly successful and that the applicant had engaged in conduct that prolongated and obfuscated the proceeding, including failing to comply with production orders for his company's general ledger.

The insurer was awarded $15,073.22 in expenses and $2,816.88 in disbursements.

The appellant appealed an order declaring him a vexatious litigant under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

He argued the application judge erred by denying his request for an adjournment due to illness and by failing to consider his self-represented status, language barriers, and alleged brain injury.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the application judge reasonably exercised his discretion to deny the adjournment given the appellant's history of unpaid costs and lack of proper medical evidence.

The Court also found no error in the application judge's decision to declare the appellant a vexatious litigant based on his repeated, meritless litigation against his former lawyers.

The applicant law firms brought an application to declare the respondent a vexatious litigant under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The respondent had a history of initiating multiple proceedings against his former lawyers, including solicitor negligence claims and assessments of accounts, while failing to pay numerous costs awards.

The court found the respondent's conduct met the criteria for a vexatious litigant and ordered that he may not institute or continue any proceeding without leave of the court.

The applicant sought an order referring a solicitor’s account for assessment more than 12 months after delivery and payment pursuant to the Solicitors Act.

The legal services related to tort claims arising from motor vehicle accidents, which were settled at mediation in 2009, with the applicant acknowledging the net recovery and legal fees.

The court considered the requirement to establish “special circumstances” to justify assessment outside the statutory 12‑month period, particularly where accounts have already been paid.

Given the applicant’s delay of nearly five years and the absence of evidence of fraud or gross misconduct, the court found no basis to waive the statutory deadline.

The motion to refer the account for assessment was dismissed.

A client appealed an assessment officer’s report confirming a law firm’s legal fees arising from the settlement of a personal injury action.

The client alleged the assessment officer lacked jurisdiction due to a dispute about the retainer, challenged credibility findings, and argued the assessed fees were unreasonable.

The court held that the dispute concerned the amount recoverable under the retainer rather than the existence of a retainer, leaving jurisdiction intact under the Solicitors’ Act.

Applying the deferential standard governing review of assessments, the court found no error in principle and upheld the officer’s reliance on quantum meruit and the factors from Cohen v. Kealey & Blaney.

The client’s application was dismissed and the law firm’s application to confirm the assessment report was granted.