Wayne S. Laski

The appellant, Wayne Laski, and the Estate of Harold Morton Laski appealed a motion judge's decision to strike their action against BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc. and Norman Yu.

The action alleged negligent misrepresentation and breach of disclosure duty related to a transfer of securities from Harold Laski to a joint account with Wendi Laski, which passed by right of survivorship outside the estate.

The motion judge struck the estate's claim for non-compliance with procedural rules and the appellant's personal claim based on issue estoppel, collateral attack, abuse of process, and lack of duty of care/damages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's discretionary decision to proceed with the motion in the appellant's absence due to repeated non-compliance with adjournment conditions.

The court also affirmed the striking of the personal claim, finding no error in the application of issue estoppel and noting the appellant's failure to demonstrate damages.

The appellant appealed an order requiring him to attend a mental examination under s. 105(2) of the Courts of Justice Act to determine if he required a litigation guardian.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle or overriding and palpable error in the motion judge's exercise of discretion, given previous court orders and expert reports concerning the appellant's conduct.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking the appointment of the Public Guardian and Trustee as litigation guardian for three defendants (Ruby, Louis, and Sylvia Kakoutis), the return of a $10,000 deposit, and the removal of certain internet postings.

The court ordered defendant Louis Kakoutis to undergo a mental examination under section 105(2) of the Courts of Justice Act, finding that he had put his mental state in issue through his counterclaim.

The court declined to appoint a litigation guardian for Ruby and Sylvia Kakoutis due to a lack of current medical evidence and refused to order the removal of internet postings, citing a lack of jurisdiction in the current proceeding.

The return of the deposit was deferred pending resolution of the litigation guardian issue.

The appellants appealed an order of the motion judge granting summary judgment and awarding costs to the respondents.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's reasons for summary judgment or the costs award, noting the costs award was not unreasonable or erroneous in principle.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

Following a summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ action alleging forgery and fraud in relation to a vehicle lease, the court determined the issue of costs.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs on the basis that the plaintiffs had advanced serious but unsubstantiated allegations of fraud.

The court held that such allegations justified an award of substantial indemnity costs.

While accepting that the defence costs outlines reflected some minor over-lawyering and partial duplication of effort, the court concluded that the defendants were nonetheless entitled to significant costs.

The amounts claimed were modestly reduced and substantial indemnity costs were awarded.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a fraud action arising from an automobile lease transaction.

The plaintiffs alleged that signatures on credit applications associated with the lease were forged and sought substantial damages for fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation.

The court held that the expert handwriting report relied upon by the plaintiffs was inadmissible because it was appended to another affidavit and lacked a proper evidentiary foundation.

Even if forgery were assumed, the plaintiffs failed to establish damages and the claim was also found to be statute‑barred under the Limitations Act.

Applying the principles from Hryniak v. Mauldin, the court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and dismissed the action.