Zoltan Matthew Kaslik

The plaintiff brought an action for professional negligence against her former lawyers regarding their handling of a civil action.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment, and the defendants cross-moved for summary judgment and to strike the claim as an abuse of process.

The court dismissed both summary judgment motions due to credibility issues and the need for expert evidence.

The court also dismissed the motion to strike, finding that the action was not a collateral attack on the assessment officer's costs decision, nor did the plaintiff's abandoned appeal of the underlying judgment preclude her from bringing a civil action for solicitor negligence.

The client appealed an Assessment Certificate and a Costs of Assessment Certificate issued by an Assessment Officer regarding unpaid legal fees.

The solicitor brought a motion to quash the appeal on jurisdictional grounds, arguing the client failed to seek leave to appeal costs and failed to file objections.

The court granted the client an extension of time to appeal the Assessment Certificate and dispensed with the objection requirement.

On the merits, the court found the Assessment Officer did not err in concluding the solicitor's requisition for assessment under s. 3(c) of the Solicitors Act was not time-barred, as the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act applied.

The court also upheld the Assessment Officer's award of $39,000 in costs on a substantial indemnity basis to the self-represented solicitor.

The appeal was dismissed.

At an urgent case conference days before a peremptory 10-day non-jury trial, the defendants requested the trial proceed virtually due to the COVID-19 pandemic and defence counsel's heightened health risks.

The plaintiffs opposed, arguing that credibility issues and the need for an interpreter required in-person viva voce testimony.

The court applied Rule 1.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and ordered the trial to proceed by videoconference, emphasizing the need to keep matters moving during the pandemic and the unacceptable risk of forcing attendance contrary to medical advice.

The respondent lawyers moved to quash the clients' appeal from an assessment officer's certificates regarding fees and costs.

The clients brought a cross-motion to extend the time for their notice of appeal.

The court declined to determine the motion to quash independently of the cross-motion to extend time, noting that assessing the extension of time requires evaluating the merits of the appeal.

Both motions were adjourned to be heard together with the main appeal for efficiency.

The defendants Jing Liu and Yu De Xing (the "Xing defendants") brought a motion to enforce a Third Party Offer to Settle dated July 4, 2017, which they accepted on February 15, 2020.

The plaintiffs and Third Party argued that a subsequent global offer to settle from January 2020 impliedly withdrew the earlier offer, or that the court should exercise discretion due to inadvertent error.

The court found the two offers to be fundamentally distinct and that the later offer did not impliedly withdraw the earlier one.

The motion to enforce the July 2017 Offer to Settle was granted, and partial indemnity costs were awarded to the moving parties.

The plaintiff, a judgment creditor, brought an action to set aside a transfer of real property from the defendants (debtor and spouse) to the spouse for nominal consideration, alleging it was a fraudulent conveyance under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act.

Both parties moved for summary judgment.

The court dismissed the defendants' request to redact the record, found the action was not limitation-barred (applying the 10-year Real Property Limitations Act period or, alternatively, the discoverability principle for the 2-year Limitations Act, 2002), and determined that the transfer was made with intent to defeat creditors, citing multiple "badges of fraud." The court granted judgment to the plaintiff, declaring the transfer void against creditors, and awarded costs.

The Ontario Real Estate Association (OREA) brought a motion for leave to intervene in an application to set aside an arbitration appeal decision regarding a real estate commission dispute.

The applicant opposed the motion, arguing OREA had no genuine interest in the private dispute.

The court granted the motion, finding that OREA had a genuine interest in the jurisdictional issues raised, specifically whether the applicant was prohibited from commencing the application under the arbitration scheme's rules, and that OREA could make a useful contribution without causing injustice to the parties.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment finding Newcastle Salvage liable for $3,304.95 in damages caused when a disposal bin caught on overhead wires.

The appellants argued that the trial judge breached principles of natural justice by adding Newcastle Salvage as a defendant during the trial and proceeding immediately to judgment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that Newcastle Salvage had notice of the claim, had filed a defence, and its representative was present at trial and given a full opportunity to present a defence.

The court held that the trial judge properly applied Small Claims Court rules and there was no denial of procedural fairness.

The respondents granted a second mortgage on their Richmond Hill home to secure a $120,000 loan from the appellant.

Upon maturity, the appellant issued a discharge statement and subsequently a Notice of Sale with significantly inflated charges.

The respondents challenged the amounts and the premature notice in a Superior Court application under section 12 of the Mortgages Act.

The application judge determined the proper discharge amount and disallowed certain charges, including an illegal interest penalty and unsupported professional fees.

The appellant appealed, arguing the application judge lacked jurisdiction and that the matter should have been assessed by an assessment officer under section 43 of the Mortgages Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision, finding he had jurisdiction to address all issues and that the respondents' application was a justifiable response to the appellant's unreasonable conduct.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment regarding the loss of a coin collection she entrusted to the defendant for appraisal.

The court found the defendant, a gratuitous bailee, negligent for losing the coins, as he could not recall their location or provide a reasonable explanation for their loss.

Summary judgment was granted on the issue of liability, with the quantum of damages to be determined at a subsequent trial.