2014 ONSC 4841 Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Cruz v. McPherson CarswellOnt 11387, 2014 ONSC 4841, 244 A.C.W.S. (3d) 720
|
|
- Camron Charles
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 2014 ONSC 4841 Ontario Superior Court of Justice Cruz v. McPherson 2014 CarswellOnt 11387, 2014 ONSC 4841, 244 A.C.W.S. (3d) 720 Terra Cruz and Carmen Cruz, Plaintiffs and Jason Mcpherson, Ontario Inc. Operating as City Core Mechanical Ltd., Ontario Inc. Operating as Summit Legal Services, Milka Popova, Fireman Wolfe LLP, Jack Fireman and William Wolfe, Defendants Perell J. Heard: August 19, 2014 Judgment: August 21, 2014 Docket: CV Counsel: Doug Wright, for Plaintiffs Darren Kirupa, for Defendants, Fireman Wolfe LLP, Jack Fireman, and William Wolfe Subject: Civil Practice and Procedure; Corporate and Commercial; Public; Torts Related Abridgment Classifications For all relevant Canadian Abridgment Classifications refer to highest level of case via History. Civil practice and procedure X Pleadings X.2 Statement of claim X.2.f Striking out for absence of reasonable cause of action X.2.f.ii Plain and obvious Headnote Civil practice and procedure --- Pleadings Statement of claim Striking out for absence of reasonable cause of action Plain and obvious Plaintiffs retained paralegal P and her company to provide legal services personal injury action against defendants M and CCM Plaintiffs were shown company's brochure indicating it worked in partnership with law firm Plaintiffs eventually terminated retainer, and learned that no statement of claim had been filed despite limitation period Plaintiffs brought action against M and CCM, and if limitation period had expired, against paralegal, company, law firm, and lawyers from firm Lawyers and law firm brought motion to have plaintiffs' claims struck out as against them Motion granted in part Claim should be struck with leave to deliver amended statement of claim only as against law firm Plaintiffs pleaded viable claim that law firm and paralegal's company were partners in legal service business and that law firm was vicariously liable for negligence or breach of contract by company Claims against lawyers should be struck without leave to amend, as unlike law firm, they were not partners with company It was arguable that it was reasonable for plaintiffs as lay persons to believe that they retained not only paralegal company but also law firm and that law firm might have duty of care to clients of outsourced legal work Plaintiffs had pleaded enough that it was not plain and obvious that law firm had no duty of care towards plaintiffs Necessity of amending statement of claim to remove claims against lawyers presented opportunity for plaintiffs to better and more expressly plead negligent misrepresentation claim against law firm. Copyright Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights reserved. 1
2 Table of Authorities Cases considered by Perell J.: Dawson v. Rexcraft Storage & Warehouse Inc. (1998), 26 C.P.C. (4th) 1, 111 O.A.C. 201, 164 D.L.R. (4th) 257, 1998 CarswellOnt 3202, 20 R.P.R. (3d) 207 (Ont. C.A.) referred to Johnson v. Adamson (1981), 1981 CarswellOnt 585, 18 C.C.L.T. 282, 128 D.L.R. (3d) 470, 34 O.R. (2d) 236 (Ont. C.A.) referred to Johnson v. Adamson (1982), 35 O.R. (2d) 64n, 41 N.R. 447n (S.C.C.) referred to Silber v. DDJ High Yield Fund (2006), 2006 CarswellOnt 3784, 20 B.L.R. (4th) 134, 24 E.T.R. (3d) 211 (Ont. S.C.J.) referred to Silver v. Imax Corp. (2009), 2009 CarswellOnt 7873, 86 C.P.C. (6th) 273 (Ont. S.C.J.) referred to Temelini v. Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner (1990), 73 O.R. (2d) 664, 38 O.A.C. 270, 1990 CarswellOnt 759 (Ont. C.A.) referred to Statutes considered: Partnerships Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.5 s. 10 considered s. 10(3) considered Rules considered: Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 R. 21 considered MOTION by defendant lawyers and law firm to strike out plaintiffs' claims as against them. Perell J.: A. Introduction 1 The Plaintiff, Terra Cruz, was injured in an automobile accident. She and her husband, Carmen Cruz, sue, amongst others, Jack Fireman and William Wolfe, who are civil litigation lawyers, and their limited liability law partnership, Fireman Wolfe LLP. 2 The Statement of Claim against Mr. Fireman, Mr. Wolfe, and Fireman Wolfe LLP asserts various causes of action for their allegedly missing the limitation period in the Cruzs' personal injury claim against the co-defendants, Jason McPherson and Ontario Inc., operating as City Core Mechanical Ltd. 3 Pursuant to Rule 21 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, Mr. Fireman, Mr. Wolfe, and Fireman Wolfe LLP bring a motion to have the Cruzs' claim struck out for failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action. They submit that the Cruzs' Statement of Claim discloses no reasonable cause of action because the Cruzs were not clients of Fireman Wolfe LLP, Copyright Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights reserved. 2
3 but rather, they were clients of a licensed paralegal, the co-defendant, Ontario Inc., operating as Summit Legal Services. 4 The co-defendant, Milka Popova, is the principal of Summit Legal Services. 5 Mr. Fireman, Mr. Wolfe, and Fireman Wolfe LLP submit that they have no contractual relationship and no duty of care to a non-client and, therefore, the Cruzs' Statement of Claim should be struck out without leave to amend. Further, at a minimum, they assert that the claims against Mr. Fireman and Mr. Wolfe should be struck because these individual defendants are entitled to the protection of being members of a limited liability partnership. 6 During the course of the argument, Mr. Fireman, Mr. Wolfe, and Fireman Wolfe LLP conceded that there was a viable claim against only Fireman Wolfe LLP for practicing in partnership with Summit Legal, and they conceded that there could be a viable claim for negligent misrepresentation against Fireman Wolfe LLP, but not against Mr. Fireman nor Mr. Wolfe. They, however, submitted that the claim for negligent misrepresentation as against Fireman Wolfe LLP had not been properly pleaded for want of a proper pleading of the reliance element of the tort. 7 In my opinion, for the reasons that follow, the claim against Mr. Fireman, Mr. Wolfe, and Fireman Wolfe, LLP should be struck with leave to deliver a Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim with claims only as against Fireman Wolfe LLP, which amended pleading may assert claims for: (a) vicarious liability as a partner with Summit Legal; (b) professional negligence; and (c) negligent misrepresentation. B. Factual Background 8 As pleaded in the Cruz's Statement of Claim, the Cruzs' vehicle was stopped on Highway 403, in the City of Mississauga, when it was struck by a vehicle driven by Mr. McPherson, for whose vehicular negligence City Core Mechanical is liable. 9 The Cruzs retained Summit Legal, a licensed paralegal, to provide them with legal services with respect to their automobile accident claims. 10 The Statement of Claim pleads that there is a connection between Summit Legal and Fireman Wolfe LLP. 11 For present purposes, the pertinent pleadings in the Statement of Claim are paragraphs 6-10, and 13-23, which state: 6. The Defendant Ontario Inc. operating as Summit Legal Services. Summit is a Paralegal firm licenced by the Law Society of Upper Canada to provide legal services in the Province of Ontario. It has offices in the City of Scarborough in the Province of Ontario. 7. The Defendant Milka Popova resides in the City of Toronto in the Province of Ontario. She was at all material times the principal of Summit. 8. The Defendant Fireman Wolfe LLP was a limited liability partnership at all material times carrying on business as a law firm with offices located in the City of Toronto in the Province of Ontario. 9. The Defendant Jack Fireman resides in the City of Toronto in the Province of Ontario. He is a barrister and solicitor licensed to practise law by the Law Society of Upper Canada. At all material times he was a partner in Fireman Wolfe LLP 10. The Defendant William Wolfe resides in the City of Toronto in the Province of Ontario. He is a barrister and solicitor licensed to practise law by the Law Society of Upper Canada. At all material times he was a partner in Fireman Wolfe LLP.... Copyright Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights reserved. 3
4 Claim against Summit Popova, Fireman Wolfe LLP, Fireman and Wolfe 13. A representative of Summit attended at the Plaintiffs home on January 15, 2010 to discuss the details of the Plaintiffs' accident. 14. During the meeting, Summit's representative presented the Plaintiffs with an advertising brochure outlining their services. On the cover of the brochure in bold print were the names of Fireman Wolfe LLP and Summit. Fireman Wolfe LLP was identified as Summits' legal counsel. The brochure represented that Summit works in partnership with Fireman Wolfe LLP 15. As a result of the meeting, the Plaintiffs signed a retainer agreement with Summit. 16. The Plaintiffs plead that the plain and ordinary meaning of the brochure and the thrust of the representations made by Summit's representative was that Summit and Fireman Wolfe LLP would jointly prosecute all of the Plaintiffs' claims arising from the subject motor vehicle accident. 17. The Plaintiffs plead that Fireman Wolfe LLP was aware that Summit was advertising its services and that it was representing to members of the pubic that there was a partnership between Summit and it. 18. Summit sent correspondence to the Plaintiffs accident benefits insurer TD Insurance Company in the course of prosecuting the claim for accident benefits. Summit's letterhead included a reference to Fireman Wolfe LLP who represented to be Summit's litigation counsel. 19. The Plaintiffs attempted to communicate with Summit beginning at the end of 2010 in order to determine the status of their claims, but no one from Summit responded. The Plaintiffs ultimately became so dissatisfied with Summit's representation that they terminated the retainer in or about June Summit wrote to the Plaintiff by letter dated June 8, 2011 advising that it would no longer be representing her. In that same letter, Summit advised if it is your intention to pursue a claim against the party or parties responsible for the accident you must commence a lawsuit by issuing and filing a Statement of Claim with the Court within two 2 years of the date of the accident. It was only at this point that the Plaintiffs discovered that a Statement of Claim had not been issued. 21. The Defendants Summit and Fireman Wolfe LLP did not advise the Plaintiffs that they were not commencing an action on their behalf against the parties who were responsible for the accident until more than two years after the date of the accident. 22. The Plaintiffs relied on the representations made by Summit's representative at the initial meeting that they would manage all of her claims arising from the accident. 23. In the event that the Plaintiffs claim against the Defendants McPherson and City Core is statue barred because the limitation has expired, this is due to the negligence and or breach of contract of the Defendants Summit, Popova, Fireman Wolfe LLP, Fireman and Wolfe the particulars of which are as follows: (a) they failed to meet the appropriate standard of care; (b) they failed to commence an action in time; (c) in the alternative, they failed to notify the Plaintiffs that they would not be commencing an action on their behalf before two years from the date of the accident; and, (d) they failed to purchase utilize maintain and or manage a proper reminder tickler system. Copyright Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights reserved. 4
5 12 While the text is not set out in the Statement of Claim, save by incorporation by reference, the brochure prepared by Summit Legal contains the following description of Summit Legal Services: Summit Legal Services specializes in the needs of accident victims injured in auto collisions. Located in Scarborough, our team of experienced paralegals, law clerks, and legal administrators are committed to the effective representation of all cases. We recognize that a serious car accident can leave you physically, emotionally and financially disabled. This is why we are here to help you assess your potential for a successful lawsuit against the at-fault party. Summit Legal services works in partnership with Fireman Wolfe LLP a well-known and respected litigation firm which handles all serious motor vehicle accident cases. 13 In the brochure, there is a banner heading with the title FIREMAN WOLFE LLP. Under the banner, is a photograph of Mr. Fireman and the following text: Mr. Fireman is a member of the Canadian Bar Association, the Ontario Bar Association, the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association, the Advocates' Society, and the American Trial Lawyers Association, and is a speaker and lecturer much in demand by many professional organizations. For over thirty-four years, Mr. Fireman represented the Insurance Industry as defence counsel, before switching to the Plaintiff side in May Mr. Fireman continues to be available to act as counsel for other firms. In the annual survey conducted by Lexpert, Jack has been honoured as 'Most Frequently Recommended' in the category of personal injury lawyers in the Toronto area for each of the 13 years the survey has been published. Additionally, Mr. Fireman was ranked as 'Consistently Recommended' in the area of commercial insurance litigation and was 'Repeatedly Recommended' in the area of products liability litigation. In 2007, Mr. Fireman was honoured by the National Post/Financial Post in their inaugural listing of the 'Best Lawyers in Canada' under the category of Personal Injury Lawyers. C. Discussion and Analysis 1. Mr. Fireman, Mr. Wolfe, and Fireman Wolfe LLPs' Argument 14 At the argument of the Rule 21 motion, Mr. Fireman, Mr. Wolfe, and Fireman Wolfe, LLP withdrew their request that, as against them, the Statement of Claim should be struck in its entirety without leave to amend. They made a more focussed attack on the pleading. 15 Assuming for the sake of argument that the Cruzs' personal injury action is statute-barred, which may or may not be the case, Mr. Fireman, Mr. Wolfe, and Fireman Wolfe LLP conceded that the Cruzs had pleaded a viable claim that Fireman Wolfe LLP and Summit Legal were partners in a legal service business, that one of the partners; i.e,. Summit Legal, was negligent or in breach of contract, and that Fireman Wolfe LLP was vicariously liable for the negligence or breach of contract of its partner Summit Legal. 16 However, even with this concession, Mr. Fireman and Mr. Wolfe, respectively, submitted that they, as individual lawyers, have no personal liability, because they are the limited partners of Fireman Wolfe LLP and, therefore, they are not vicariously liable. They submitted that the claims against them personally should be struck out without leave to amend. 17 Mr. Fireman and Mr. Wolfe rely on the exemptions to liability for limited liability partners found in s. 10 of the Partnership Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 5, as amended, which states: Liability of partners Copyright Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights reserved. 5
6 10.(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), every partner in a firm is liable jointly with the other partners for all debts and obligations of the firm incurred while the person is a partner, and after the partner's death the partner's estate is also severally liable in a due course of administration for such debts and obligations so far as they remain unsatisfied, but subject to the prior payment of his or her separate debts. Limited liability partnerships (2) Subject to subsections (3) and (3.1), a partner in a limited liability partnership is not liable, by means of indemnification, contribution or otherwise, for, (a) the debts, liabilities or obligations of the partnership or any partner arising from the negligent or wrongful acts or omissions that another partner or an employee, agent or representative of the partnership commits in the course of the partnership business while the partnership is a limited liability partnership; or (b) any other debts or obligations of the partnership that are incurred while the partnership is a limited liability partnership. Limitations (3) Subsection (2) does not relieve a partner in a limited liability partnership from liability for, Same (a) the partner's own negligent or wrongful act or omission; (b) the negligent or wrongful act or omission of a person under the partner's direct supervision; or (c) the negligent or wrongful act or omission of another partner or an employee of the partnership not under the partner's direct supervision, if, (i) the act or omission was criminal or constituted fraud, even if there was no criminal act or omission, or (ii) the partner knew or ought to have known of the act or omission and did not take the actions that a reasonable person would have taken to prevent it. (3.1) Subsection (2) does not protect a partner's interest in the partnership property from claims against the partnership respecting a partnership obligation. Partner not proper party to action (4) A partner in a limited liability partnership is not a proper party to a proceeding by or against the limited liability partnership for the purpose of recovering damages or enforcing obligations arising out of the negligent acts or omissions described in subsection (2). Extra-provincial limited liability partnerships (5) This section does not apply to an extra-provincial limited liability partnership. 18 Next, Mr. Fireman, Mr. Wolfe, and Fireman Wolfe LLP argue that the acknowledged to be viable vicarious liability claim against Fireman Wolfe LLP is, however, distinct from the negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims. They assert that it is plain and obvious that these distinct claims are not viable. They submit that the negligence claim should be struck out without leave to amend and the negligent misrepresentation claim should be struck out with leave to amend to properly plead the constituent element of reasonable reliance. Copyright Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights reserved. 6
7 19 They submit that the negligence claim is not viable because the Cruzs were not clients of any of Mr. Fireman, Mr. Wolfe, and Fireman Wolfe LLP, and it is only in rare and extraordinary circumstances, not present in this case, when a lawyer or law firm will be liable to a non-client. 20 They submit that it is not reasonably foreseeable that Mr. Fireman, Mr. Wolfe, and Fireman Wolfe LLP should have a duty of care to non-clients and that in the circumstances of the immediate case, none of these Defendants had a duty of care with respect to the legal services provided by Summit Legal, an independent legal service provider. Mr. Fireman, Mr. Wolfe, and Fireman Wolfe LLP submit that they had no duty of care with respect to the clients of an independent legal service provider. 21 Assuming that a duty of care was found to exist, Mr. Fireman, Mr. Wolfe, and Fireman Wolfe LLP also argue that it is plain and obvious that the Cruzs have not pleaded a viable negligent misrepresentation claim against them. 22 They submit that the negligent misrepresentation claim should be struck but with leave to amend. They submit that the misrepresentation claim relates to the representation that Fireman Wolfe LLP and Summit Legal were partners, but that this misrepresentation claim is deficient because there is no allegation that the Cruzs relied on this representation. 23 With respect to the negligence claim and also the negligent misrepresentation claim, Mr. Fireman and Mr. Wolfe repeat their argument that in their personal capacity they should not be parties to this litigation. 2. The Plain and Obvious Test 24 Where a defendant submits that the plaintiff's pleading does not disclose a reasonable cause of action, to succeed in having the action dismissed, the defendant must show that it is plain, obvious, and beyond doubt that the plaintiff cannot succeed in the claim: Dawson v. Rexcraft Storage & Warehouse Inc. (1998), 164 D.L.R. (4th) 257 (Ont. C.A.). 25 Matters of law that are not fully settled should not be disposed of on a motion to strike: Dawson v. Rexcraft Storage & Warehouse Inc., supra, and the court's power to strike a claim is exercised only in the clearest cases: Temelini v. Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner (1990), 73 O.R. (2d) 664 (Ont. C.A.). 26 The law must be allowed to evolve, and the novelty of a claim will not militate against a plaintiff: Johnson v. Adamson (1981), 34 O.R. (2d) 236 (Ont. C.A.), leave to appeal to the S.C.C. refused (1982), 35 O.R. (2d) 64n (S.C.C.). However, a novel claim must have some elements of a cause of action recognized in law and be a reasonably logical and arguable extension of established law: Silver v. Imax Corp., [2009] O.J. No (Ont. S.C.J.), at para. 20; Silber v. DDJ High Yield Fund, [2006] O.J. No (Ont. S.C.J.). 27 Generally speaking, the case law imposes a very low standard for the demonstration of a cause of action, which is to say that, conversely, it is very difficult for a defendant to show that it is plain, obvious, and beyond doubt that the plaintiff cannot succeed with the claim. 3. The Claims against Mr. Fireman and Mr. Wolfe 28 Turning to the case at bar, it is conceded that the Cruzs have pleaded a viable claim for the vicariously liability of Fireman Wolfe LLP for the liability of its alleged partner, Summit Legal. Relying on s. 10 of the Partnership Act, it is submitted, however, that there is no viable claim for vicarious liability of Mr. Fireman and Mr. Wolfe and, therefore, the claim as against them should be struck. 29 I agree but for a different reason that the vicarious liability claim should be struck as against Mr. Fireman and Mr. Wolfe. 30 Based on the information contained in the marketing brochure, the Cruzs' Statement of Claim alleges that there is a partnership between Summit Legal (a corporation) and Fireman Wolfe LLP. The Statement of Claim, however, Copyright Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights reserved. 7
8 does not allege - nor could it allege - that there is a partnership comprised of a corporation (Summit Legal), a limited partnership (Fireman Wolfe, LLP), and two lawyers (Mr. Fireman and Mr. Wolfe). 31 In other words, Mr. Fireman and Mr. Wolfe are not alleged to be partners of the pertinent partnership comprised of Summit Legal and Fireman Wolfe LLP nor could that be alleged, because the brochure discloses a connection only between Summit Legal and Fireman Wolfe LLP. Mr. Fireman and Mr. Wolfe's position is akin to that of Ms. Popova, who is the principal of Summit Legal, but not a partner of the requisite partnership. 32 In still other words, it is not a matter of s. 10 of the Partnership Act that justifies striking the claim against Mr. Fireman and Mr. Wolfe. The reason that Mr. Fireman and Mr. Wolfe are not vulnerable to a claim based on vicarious liability is that they are not partners to the pertinent partnership. This is particularly true for Mr. Wolfe, who like the other partners and employees of Fireman Wolfe LLP, has only an indirect connection to Summit Legal. 33 Section 10 of the Partnership Act may or may not be available to Mr. Fireman and Mr. Wolfe insofar as Fireman Wolfe LLP is being sued, because the qualifications found in s. 10 (3) of the Partnership Act may negate the exclusions of liability, but the pertinent point is that Mr. Fireman and Mr. Wolfe are not partners of the partnership comprised of Summit Legal and Fireman Wolfe LLP. Therefore, the claims for vicarious liability against Mr. Fireman and Mr. Wolfe should be struck out without leave to amend. 34 For similar reasons, the claims against Mr. Fireman and Mr. Wolfe for negligence and negligent misrepresentation should be struck without leave to amend. 4. The Claims Against Fireman Wolfe LLP 35 As noted above, it is now acknowledged that there is a tenable claim for vicarious liability as against Fireman Wolfe LLP. 36 Although the claims as pleaded are sketchy and the Statement of Claim is not eloquent and wants for particularly, in my opinion, the Statement of Claim does plead novel but legally tenable tort claims against Fireman Wolfe LLP. 37 With respect to the professional negligence claim against Fireman Wolfe, LLP, I agree that it is rare that a law firm will have a duty of care to a non-client and rarer still that a law firm will be liable if another legal-service provider is independently providing services to its client. However, the Cruzs do not fit the profile of a non-client of Fireman Wolfe LLP, who for the purposes of this motion are to be taken as promoting a connection with Summit Legal. During the argument of the motion, I suggested that the Cruzs might be better described as quasi-clients, where quasi has the meanings "seeming" "almost" or "as if it were." 38 Fireman Wolfe, LLP would have no conflict of interest in acting for the Cruzs and, indeed, if the brochure is to be believed, it is anticipated that a lawyer and client relationship will be established, if it is not already established by the fact, to quote the marketing brochure, that "Summit Legal Services works in partnership with Fireman Wolfe LLP a well-known and respected litigation firm which handles all serious motor vehicle accident cases." 39 When one recognizes that paralegals, like Summit Legal, are not licensed to act for personal injury plaintiffs to advance their tort claims in the Superior Court, the brochure that is incorporated into the factual context of the Statement of Claim does more marketing for Fireman Wolfe LLP than it does for Summit Legal. Given what the brochure describes, it is arguable that it was reasonable for the Cruzs, as lay persons, to believe that they had retained not only Summit Legal but also Fireman Wolfe LLP. 40 One has the impression from the Statement of Claim that Fireman Wolfe LLP was outsourcing legal work to its business partner, Summit Legal. The marketing brochure suggests that there is a close connection between Summit Legal and Fireman Wolfe LLP. The pleaded facts in the Statement of Claim suggests that the connection between Fireman Wolfe LLP and Summit Legal was such that Fireman Wolfe LLP anticipated that after preparatory legal work had been Copyright Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights reserved. 8
9 performed for the Cruzs by Summit Legal, the law firm would take over and prosecute the Cruzs' tort claims. It is, thus, not much of a stretch to accept that at this juncture of the case at bar, Fireman Wolfe LLP would have a duty of care to clients of outsourced legal work. 41 The allocation of legal services between Summit Legal and Fireman Wolfe LLP has something of a reciprocal or reverse referral to it. The impression of a close connection between Summit Legal and Fireman Wolfe LLP makes it arguable that it is reasonably foreseeable that Fireman Wolfe LLP could and should have envisioned that they would have a duty of care to the clients of Summit Legal who would be quasi-clients of Fireman Wolfe LLP. 42 By way of analogy, a family doctor might refer a patient to a specialist to perform a medical procedure and thereby discharge his duty of care to the patient by selecting an accredited specialist in that procedure; however, that is a different situation from the family doctor having a nurse practitioner prep a patient for a procedure that could only be performed by a doctor. In those circumstances, the family doctor would not have discharged his or her duty of care by the involvement of the nurse practitioner and would foresee a duty of care to the patient who he or she may not have met until after the nurse practitioner had done his or her preparatory work. 43 I am not saying that it is plain and obvious that there is a duty of care in the circumstances of the case at bar. A judge on a summary judgment motion or after a trial may determine that the connection between Fireman Wolfe, LLP and Summit Legal does not give rise to a duty of care; however, for present purposes, on a Rule 21 motion, it is not plain and obvious that a conclusion of no duty of care is inevitable. 44 The claims in the case at bar are novel, and it is still early days in the development of the law to govern the relationship between lawyers and licensed paralegals now that both have come under the regulation of the courts and the Law Society of Upper Canada. 45 I am also not saying that there may be cases where it is plain and obvious that there is not a close enough connection between a law firm and an independent paralegal that the law firm would not have a duty of care to the paralegal's client. However, that is not the case at bar, where, in my opinion, the Cruzs have pleaded enough so that at this juncture it is not plain and obvious that Fireman Wolfe LLP does not have a duty of care to the Cruzs. 46 With respect to the negligent misrepresentation claim as against Fireman Wolfe, LLP, I do not necessarily agree with Fireman Wolfe LLP's argument that the Statement of Claim is deficient in pleading the constituent element of reasonable reliance. However, I do agree that the Statement of Claim needs to be amended, if for no other reason than the claims against Mr. Fireman and Mr. Wolfe should be removed. 47 The necessity of amending the Statement of Claim provides an opportunity to provide particulars and to better and more expressly plead the misrepresentation and the reliance elements of the negligent misrepresentation claim. 48 In these circumstances, I think the appropriate order to make is to strike the claims against Mr. Fireman, Mr. Wolfe, and Fireman Wolfe, LLP in their entirety with leave to deliver a Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim with claims only as against Fireman Wolfe LLP, which amended pleading may assert claims for: (a) vicarious liability; (b) professional negligence; and (c) negligent misrepresentation. D. Conclusion 49 Order accordingly. 50 In my opinion, success on the motion was divided and the appropriate order is to make the costs in the cause fixed at $4,000, all inclusive. Motion granted in part. Copyright Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights reserved. 9
10 End of Document Copyright Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights reserved. Copyright Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights reserved. 10
HALEY WHITTERS and JULIE HENDERSON
CITATION: Whitters v. Furtive Networks Inc., 2012 ONSC 2159 COURT FILE NO.: CV-11-420068 DATE: 20120405 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: HALEY WHITTERS and JULIE HENDERSON - and - FURTIVE NETWORKS
More information2013 ONSC 5288 Ontario Superior Court of Justice. S&R Flooring Concepts Inc. v. RLC Stratford LP
2013 ONSC 5288 Ontario Superior Court of Justice S&R Flooring Concepts Inc. v. RLC Stratford LP 2013 CarswellOnt 12254, 2013 ONSC 5288, 232 A.C.W.S. (3d) 95, 31 C.L.R. (4th) 89 S&R Flooring Concepts Inc.,
More informationContract and Tort Law for Engineers
Contract and Tort Law for Engineers Christian S. Tacit Tel: 613-599-5345 Email: ctacit@tacitlaw.com Canadian Systems of Law There are two systems of law that operate in Canada Common Law and Civil Law
More informationChecklist XX - Sources of Municipal and Personal Liability and Immunity. Subject matter MA COTA Maintenance of highways and bridges
Checklist XX - Sources of Municipal and Personal Liability and Immunity See also extensive case law in this volume under the sections identified below, and in the introduction to Part XV. A. Public highways
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. ) ) Plaintiffs ) ) ) Defendant ) ) DECISION ON MOTION:
CITATION: Rush v. Via Rail Canada Inc., 2017 ONSC 2243 COURT FILE NO.: CV-14-507160 DATE: 20170518 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: Yael Rush and Thomas Rush Plaintiffs and Via Rail Canada Inc.
More informationONTARIO ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Applicant. Respondents REASONS FOR DECISION
CITATION: Kee Kwok v. State Farm Mutual, 2016 ONSC 7339 COURT FILE NO.: CV-16-559520 DATE: 20161202 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: KEE KWOK, by his Litigation Guardian Grace Kwok and Applicant
More informationPage: 2 Manufacturing Inc. referred to as ( Stork Craft has brought a motion to enforce the alleged settlement agreement between counsel to discontinu
CITATION: Duong v. Stork Craft Manufacturing Inc., 2011 ONSC 2534 COURT FILE NO.: CV-09-46962CP DATE: 2011/05/12 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: DAVID DUONG, RINKU SINGH and CHRISTINA WOOF Plaintiffs
More informationWORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
2003 ONWSIAT 1955 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 234/03 [1] This right to sue application was heard in London on February 4, 2003, by Vice-Chair M. Kenny. THE RIGHT TO SUE
More informationWORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1086/15
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1086/15 BEFORE: R. McCutcheon: Vice-Chair HEARING: May 28, 2015 at Toronto Oral hearing Post-hearing activity completed on September 10, 2015
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
BETWEEN COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Intact Insurance Company v. Kisel, 2015 ONCA 205 DATE: 20150326 DOCKET: C59338 and C59339 Laskin, Simmons and Watt JJ.A. Intact Insurance Company and Yaroslava
More informationChodowski v. Huntsville Professional Building Inc. et al. [Indexed as: Chodowski v. Huntsville Professional Building Inc.]
Chodowski v. Huntsville Professional Building Inc. et al. [Indexed as: Chodowski v. Huntsville Professional Building Inc.] 104 O.R. (3d) 73 2010 ONSC 4897 Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Wood J. September
More informationOntario Court Declines to Impose a Duty on a Bank to Protect Third-Party Victims of a Fraud based on Constructive Knowledge
Ontario Court Declines to Impose a Duty on a Bank to Protect Third-Party Victims of a Fraud based on Constructive Knowledge I. Overview Mark Evans and Ara Basmadjian Dentons Canada LLP In 1169822 Ontario
More informationWORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1806/09
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1806/09 BEFORE: J. P. Moore : Vice-Chair HEARING: June 17, 2010 at Toronto Oral DATE OF DECISION: July 27, 2010 NEUTRAL CITATION: 2010 ONWSIAT
More informationCase Name: Beiko v. Hotel Dieu Hospital St. Catharines
Page 1 Case Name: Beiko v. Hotel Dieu Hospital St. Catharines Between Dr. George Beiko, Dr. Lawrence Aedy, Dr. Bruce Lennox and Dr. Gerald Scaife, Plaintiffs/Respondents, and Hotel Dieu Hospital St. Catharines,
More informationDisposition before Trial
Disposition before Trial Presented By Andrew J. Heal January 13, 2011 Q: What's the difference between a good lawyer and a bad lawyer? A: A bad lawyer can let a case drag out for several years. A good
More informationCraig T. Lockwood, for the Defendants B.C. Ltd. o/a Canada Drives and o/a GDC Auto and Cody Green REASONS FOR DECISION
CITATION: Kings Auto Ltd. v. Torstar Corporation, 2018 ONSC 2451 COURT FILE NO.: CV-16-551919CP DATE: 20180418 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: BEFORE: KINGS AUTO LTD. and SAPNA INC., Plaintiffs
More informationAttempting to reconcile Kitchenham and Tanner: Practical considerations in obtaining productions protected by deemed and implied undertakings
Attempting to reconcile Kitchenham and Tanner: Practical considerations in obtaining productions protected by deemed and implied undertakings By Kevin L. Ross and Alysia M. Christiaen, Lerners LLP The
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) REASONS FOR DECISON
CITATION: Lapierre v. Lecuyer, 2018 ONSC 1540 COURT FILE NO.: 16-68322/19995/16 DATE: 2018/04/10 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: MARTINE LaPIERRE, AMY COULOMBE, ANTHONY MICHAEL COULOMBE and
More informationCase Name: Manley v. Manley
Page 1 Case Name: Manley v. Manley IN THE MATTER OF a motion to set aside a default order made against a corporate garnishee for its failure to obey a notice of garnishment Between Marie Marlene Manley,
More informationThomas Gorsky and C. Chan, for the Defendant ENDORSEMENT
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO CITATION: CHRISTMAS v. FORT McKAY, 2014 ONSC #373 COURT FILE NO.: CV-12-461796 DATE: 20140128 RE: BERND CHRISTMAS, Plaintiff AND FORT McKAY FIRST NATION, Defendant BEFORE:
More informationCHEYENNE SANTANA MARIE FOX, DECEASED, JOHN GRAHAM TERRANCE FOX, ESTATE TRUSTEE OF THE ESTATE OF CHEYENNE SANTANA MARIE FOX
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO CITATION: Fox v. Narine, 2016 ONSC 6499 COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-526934 DATE: 20161020 RE: CHEYENNE SANTANA MARIE FOX, DECEASED, JOHN GRAHAM TERRANCE FOX, ESTATE TRUSTEE
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
Court File No. CV-12-444388 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: EPOCH S GARAGE LIMITED, COOK SCHOOL BUS LINES LIMITED, 678928 ONTARIO INC. and ROBERT DOUGLAS AKITT O/A DOUG AKITT BUS LINES - and
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Defendants ) ) ) ) ) REASONS FOR DECISION ON MOTION
CITATION: Daniells v. McLellan, 2017 ONSC 6887 COURT FILE NO.: CV-13-5565-CP DATE: 2017/11/29 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: SHERRY-LYNN DANIELLS Plaintiff - and - MELISSA McLELLAN and
More informationCHARITY & NFP LAW BULLETIN NO. 414
CHARITY & NFP LAW BULLETIN NO. 414 JANUARY 31, 2018 EDITOR: TERRANCE S. CARTER WHEN WAIVERS FAIL: THE IMPACT OF IMPRECISE LANGUAGE AND RESULTING LIABILITY By Sean S. Carter & Barry W. Kwasniewski * A.
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Tapak v. Non-Marine Underwriters, 2018 ONCA 168 DATE: 20180220 DOCKET: C64205 Hourigan, Roberts and Nordheimer JJ.A. BETWEEN Carrie Anne Tapak, Dennis Cromarty, Faye
More informationDuncan W. Glaholt. Markus Rotterdam *
1 6 CONSTRUCTION LAW REPORTS 3 C.L.R. (3d) Case Comment: Toro Aluminum Ltd. v. Revah Duncan W. Glaholt Markus Rotterdam * Does a person liable for breach of trust as an accessory under s. 13(1) of the
More informationWORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 955/09
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 955/09 BEFORE: J. Josefo: Vice-Chair HEARING: May 13, 2009 at Ottawa Oral DATE OF DECISION: June 16, 2009 NEUTRAL CITATION: 2009 ONWSIAT 1450
More informationPage 2 [2] The action arose from a motor vehicle accident on October 9, The plaintiff Anthony Okafor claimed two million dollars and the plainti
CITATION: OKAFOR v. MARKEL INSURANCE & KROPKA, 2010 ONSC 2093 COURT FILE NO.: C42087/97 DATE: 2010-06-01 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: JUNE OKAFOR AND ANTHONY OKAFOR Plaintiffs - and
More informationPre-Incorporation Contracts Who Owns Them?
Pre-Incorporation Contracts Who Owns Them? By Albert S. Frank, LL.B. In January of 2002 the Court of Appeal for Ontario dealt with the law of pre-incorporation contracts under the Business Corporations
More informationTHAT Council receive report FAF entitled Research Memo Coverage of Litigation Costs for information.
This document can be made available in other accessible formats as soon as practicable and upon request STAFF REPORT: Chief Administrative Officer A. Recommendations THAT Council receive report FAF.16.67
More informationCED: An Overview of the Law
Torts BY: Edwin Durbin, B.Comm., LL.B., LL.M. of the Ontario Bar Part II Principles of Liability Click HERE to access the CED and the Canadian Abridgment titles for this excerpt on Westlaw Canada II.1.(a):
More informationMEMORANDUM. The facts and issues are more particularly set out below under the heading FACTS AND ISSUES.
MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: CC: RE: Lawyer-client Virtual Associate Project Manager, Taran Virtual Associates Client-Matter reference DATE: November 5, 2007 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF ASSIGNMENT You have asked us to
More informationCivil Law is known as Private Law. Regulates disputes between individuals; between parties; and between individuals and parties.
Civil Disputes Civil Law is known as Private Law. Regulates disputes between individuals; between parties; and between individuals and parties. The main purpose of Civil Law is to compensate victims. Civil
More informationOntario Superior Court of Justice (Small Claims Court) BARBARA DOWDS. - and - SCHEDULE A PLAINTIFF S CLAIM
Court File No. 12345/12 B E T W E E N : Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Small Claims Court) BARBARA DOWDS - and - Plaintiff DESIGNER SUNROOMS AND ADDITIONS o/b 1738848 ONTARIO LTD. Defendant SCHEDULE
More informationIdentifying and Addressing the Limitations of Waivers and Permission Forms in a School Setting
Identifying and Addressing the Limitations of Waivers and Permission Forms in a School Setting By Robert C. McGlashan, McCague Borlack LLP Introduction It is common practice for schools to offer enhancements
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Gosselin v. Shepherd, 2010 BCSC 755 April Gosselin Date: 20100527 Docket: S104306 Registry: New Westminster Plaintiff Mark Shepherd and Dr.
More informationDIVISIONAL COURT, SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE CAPITAL ONE BANK (CANADA BRANCH) APPELLANT S FACTUM I. STATEMENT OF THE APPEAL
Divisional Court File No. DC-12-463-00 DIVISIONAL COURT, SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: CAPITAL ONE BANK (CANADA BRANCH) -and- Plaintiff (Appellant) LAURA M. TOOGOOD aka LAURA MARIE TOOGOOD aka
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION) LTD t/a AVIS RENT A CAR NDWAMATO PHINIAS LAVHENGWA JUDGMENT
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL
More informationM I L L E R T H O M S O N LLP Barristers & Solicitors, Patent & Trade Mark Agents
M I L L E R T H O M S O N LLP Barristers & Solicitors, Patent & Trade Mark Agents Communiqué for Health Industry Clients on the Legal Retainer Program In this issue: Limitations Act, 2002 Obstetrical Malpractice
More informationCase Name: Laudon v. Roberts. Between Rick Laudon, Plaintiff, and Will Roberts and Keith Sullivan, Defendants. [2007] O.J. No.
Page 1 Case Name: Laudon v. Roberts Between Rick Laudon, Plaintiff, and Will Roberts and Keith Sullivan, Defendants [2007] O.J. No. 1414 156 A.C.W.S. (3d) 844 49 C.P.C. (6th) 311 2007 CarswellOnt 2191
More informationWORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 194/16
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 194/16 BEFORE: S. Martel: Vice-Chair HEARING: January 21, 2016 at Toronto Oral DATE OF DECISION: March 23, 2016 NEUTRAL CITATION: 2016 ONWSIAT
More informationNOVA SCOTIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL
NOVA SCOTIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL Applicant: [X] Respondents: [X] and The Workers Compensation Board of Nova Scotia (Board) SECTION 29 APPLICATION DECISION Representatives: [X] Action:
More informationMEETING NOTICE REQUIREMENTS
NUTS&BOLTS BY GILLIAN MAYS MEETING NOTICE REQUIREMENTS Introduction The 10-day notice periods prescribed by the Municipal Act, 20011 and the City of Toronto Act, 2006,2 have been judicially referred to
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Maple Ridge Community Management Ltd. v. Peel Condominium Corporation No. 231, 2015 ONCA 520 DATE: 20150709 DOCKET: C59661 BETWEEN Laskin, Lauwers and Hourigan JJ.A.
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ONTARIO LIMITED. -and- GREG KELLY, JOAN KELLY, ONTARIO INC. and TRADESMAN HOME INSPECTIONS
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE Court File No.: CV-12-466870 B E T W E E N: 2180511 ONTARIO LIMITED Plaintiff -and- GREG KELLY, JOAN KELLY, 1159387 ONTARIO INC. and TRADESMAN HOME INSPECTIONS STATEMENT
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, MTHATHA) CASE NO.: 1355/2013. In the matter between: And JUDGMENT BESHE J:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, MTHATHA) In the matter between: NANDIPHA ELTER JACK CASE NO.: 1355/2013 Plaintiff And ANDILE BALENI NS NOMBAMBELA INCORPORATED First Defendant
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT J. WILSON, KARAKATSANIS, AND BRYANT JJ. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Ministry of Attorney General and Toronto Star and Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, 2010 ONSC 991 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 34/09 DATE: 20100326 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL
More information2014 Bill 8. Third Session, 28th Legislature, 63 Elizabeth II THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA BILL 8 JUSTICE STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2014
2014 Bill 8 Third Session, 28th Legislature, 63 Elizabeth II THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA BILL 8 JUSTICE STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2014 MS KENNEDY-GLANS First Reading.......................................................
More informationCosts in Small Claims Court. By: W. Patrick Sloan, B.A. LL.B. Ferguson Barristers LLP
Costs in Small Claims Court By: W. Patrick Sloan, B.A. LL.B. Ferguson Barristers LLP Introduction The small claims court is intended to allow quicker and more cost efficient access to justice. Coupled
More informationTHE IJIABILITY FOR GRATUITOUS ADVICE. By E. I. SYKES, B.A., LL.B.
I THE IJIABILITY FOR GRATUITOUS ADVICE By E. I. SYKES, B.A., LL.B. N Banbury v. The Bank of Montreall Lord Finlay L.C. and Lord Atkinson were r~sponsible for certain obiter dicta regarding a topic which
More informationFACTUM OF THE APPELLANTS (MOVING PARTIES)
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Court of Appeal Court File No. M28645 BETWEEN: MARLENE C. CLOUD, GERALDINE ROBERTSON, RON DELEARY, LEO NICHOLAS, GORDON HOPKINS, WARRN DOXTATOR, ROBERTA HILL, J. FRANK HILL,
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT FERRIER, SWINTON & LEDERER JJ. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Applicant.
CITATION: St. Catharines (City v. IPCO, 2011 ONSC 346 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 351/09 DATE: 20110316 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT FERRIER, SWINTON & LEDERER JJ. B E T W E E N: THE
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
BETWEEN COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Downer v. The Personal Insurance Company, 2012 ONCA 302 Ryan M. Naimark, for the appellant Lang, LaForme JJ.A. and Pattillo J. (ad hoc) John W. Bruggeman,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And: Varner v. Vancouver (City), 2009 BCSC 333 Gary Varner Date: 20090226 Docket: S032834 Registry: Vancouver Plaintiff John Doe and Richard
More informationInc. v. Glen Grove Suites Inc.: Using privity and agency to hold third parties liable
1196303 Inc. v. Glen Grove Suites Inc.: Using privity and agency to hold third parties liable Mary Paterson* and Gerard Kennedy**, Osler Hoskin & Harcourt LLP The Ontario Court of Appeal s August 2015
More informationHoulden & Morawetz On-Line Newsletter
2012 37 Houlden & Morawetz On-Line Newsletter Date: September 10, 2012 Headlines The Ontario Superior Court of Justice addressed the issue of how to distribute commingled funds to the victims of a fraudulent
More informationGood Faith and Honesty: Bhasin v Hrynew
Good Faith and Honesty: Bhasin v Hrynew June 9, 2015 Toronto, Ontario Marc Kestenberg, Partner, Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP Marlo Kravetsky, Senior Counsel, TD Bank Group Deborah Reine, Senior Counsel,
More informationIN THE QUEEN'S BENCH JUDICIAL CENTRE OF REGINA. -and-
..,. ~ I CANADA ) PROVINCE OF SASKATCHEWAN ) } ()7 Q.B.G. No. ------'-'------- IN THE QUEEN'S BENCH JUDICIAL CENTRE OF REGINA Between: NICOLE BRITTIN -and- PLAINTIFF THE MINSTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES AND
More informationGowling Lafleur Henderson LLP, Mark Siegel and Rosanne Dawson, Defendants. Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton LLP, Third Party
CITATION: Ozerdinc Family Trust et al v Gowling et al, 2017 ONSC 6 COURT FILE NO.: 13-57421 A1 DATE: 2017/01/03 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: BEFORE: Ozerdinc Family Trust, Muharrem Ersin Ozerdinc,
More informationCivil Liability Amendment (Personal Responsibility) Act 2002 No 92
New South Wales Civil Liability Amendment (Personal Responsibility) Act 2002 No 92 Contents Page 1 Name of Act 2 2 Commencement 2 3 Amendment of Civil Liability Act 2002 No 22 2 4 Consequential repeals
More informationPolluter Pays Doctrine Underscored: Section 99(2) of the EPA Applied: Some Thoughts on Midwest Properties Ltd. v. Thordarson, 2015 ONCA 819
1 Polluter Pays Doctrine Underscored: Section 99(2) of the EPA Applied: Some Thoughts on Midwest Properties Ltd. v. Thordarson, 2015 ONCA 819 Some Thoughts by the Lawyers at Willms & Shier Environmental
More informationLegal Liability in Adventure Tourism
Legal Liability in Adventure Tourism Ross Cloutier Bhudak Consultants Ltd. www.bhudak.com The Legal System in Canada Common Law Records creating a foundation of cases useful as a source of common legal
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs ) Defendant ) DECISION ON COSTS
BROCKVILLE COURT FILE NO.: 05-0083 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: DUSKA BARKLEY, PEYTON BARKLEY, Jonathan A. Schwartzman, for the Plaintiffs MARATHA BARKLEY, by their Litigation Guardian,
More informationcv 1S~'S~V I&~ Court File No.
cv 1S~'S~V I&~ Court File No. ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: (Court seal) METROPOLITAN TORONTO CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION NO. 933 Plaintiff - and- ICC PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD., and MASSIMO MUSSO
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Wamboldt Estate v. Wamboldt, 2017 NSSC 288
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Wamboldt Estate v. Wamboldt, 2017 NSSC 288 Date: 20171107 Docket: Bwt No. 459126 Registry: Bridgewater Between: Michael Dockrill, in his capacity as the executor
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Citation: Gringmuth v. The Corp. of the Dist. of North Vancouver Date: 20000524 2000 BCSC 807 Docket: C995402 Registry: Vancouver IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN: AXEL GRINGMUTH PLAINTIFF
More informationINDEPENDENT FORENSIC AUDITS RE S By V.A. (Bud) MacDonald, Q.C. and Bottom Line Research. Overview
INDEPENDENT FORENSIC AUDITS RE EMAILS By V.A. (Bud) MacDonald, Q.C. and Bottom Line Research Overview On some files your opponent may be taking the position that there are no relevant emails in addition
More informationFD: FD: DT:D DN: 357/93 STY:Ontario Hydro v. Frontier Hydraulics Ltd. PANEL: Faubert; M. Cook; Ronson DDATE: ACT: *10(12) KEYW: Right to sue
FD: FD: DT:D DN: 357/93 STY:Ontario Hydro v. Frontier Hydraulics Ltd. PANEL: Faubert; M. Cook; Ronson DDATE:220793 ACT: *10(12) KEYW: Right to sue (third party claims); Damages, contribution or indemnity.
More informationA PRACTICAL GUIDE TO PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE FEDERAL CROWN
A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE FEDERAL CROWN Martin C.Ward Introduction: The Crown could not be sued at common law. The Courts were creations of the Crown and as such it could not be compelled
More informationHealth Law. Tracey Tremayne-Lloyd Dr. Gary Srebrolow
Health Law Research ethics approval for human and animal experimentation: Consequences of failing to obtain approval including legal and professional liability Tracey Tremayne-Lloyd* Dr. Gary Srebrolow**
More informationE N D O R S E M E N T (corrected)
COURT FILE NO.: 07-CV-334666PD2 DATE: 20070620 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: State Farm Insurance Company v. v. Jean Brijlal and Roy Brijlal BEFORE: Justice D. Brown COUNSEL: Pamela Pengelley,
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DAVID CARMICHAEL. -and-
(1fl ~ I CJ~!fl%'1( Court File No. ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DAVID CARMICHAEL -and- Plaintiff VIA RAIL CANADA INC., CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY, and CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY Defendants
More informationWhy is knowing who an officer is important to a corporate franchisor?
Who is an officer for the purposes of preparing a Franchise Disclosure Document ( FDD ) under the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000 ( Act ) 1 and Regulations ( Regulations ) 2 The role of
More informationfailing to get the contract signed (something that never ceases to amaze lawyers!);
Professionals involved in design-build projects should be aware of the risks they face when they contract with the owner to be solely responsible for both construction and design. In this respect, the
More informationPage: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND COURT OF APPEAL. JOHN McGOWAN and CAROLYN McGOWAN THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA
Page: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND COURT OF APPEAL Citation: McGowan v. Bank of Nova Scotia 2011 PECA 20 Date: 20111214 Docket: S1-CA-1202 Registry: Charlottetown BETWEEN: AND:
More informationJUDGMENT. 1 I am required to decide the disputes disclosed by the defendant's. special plea of prescription raised in defence to the plaintiffs claim.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NO: 5664/2011 In the matter between: EDWARD THOMPSON Plaintiff and CITY OF TSHWANE METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY Defendant JUDGMENT Tuchten
More informationThe Civil Action Part 1 of a 4 part series
The Civil Action Part 1 of a 4 part series The American civil judicial system is slow, and imperfect, but many times a victim s only recourse in attempting to me made whole after suffering an injury. This
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. ) ) Plaintiff ) ) ) Defendants ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) REASONS FOR DECISION
CITATION: Boyadjian v. Durham (Regional Municipality, 2016 ONSC 6477 OSHAWA COURT FILE NO.: 74724/11 DATE: 20161101 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: LUCY BOYADJIAN Plaintiff and THE REGIONAL
More informationWORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 808/15
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 808/15 BEFORE: J. Josefo: Vice-Chair HEARING: April 23, 2015 at Toronto Oral DATE OF DECISION: May 13, 2015 NEUTRAL CITATION: 2015 ONWSIAT 1038
More informationSupreme Court reaffirms low threshold for jurisdiction in recognition and enforcement cases
Supreme Court reaffirms low threshold for jurisdiction in recognition and enforcement cases Ted Brook Litigation Conflict of Laws Foreign Judgments Jurisdiction Enforcement and Recognition Service Ex Juris
More informationCHAPTER 107 CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AND JOINT WRONGDOERS
Cap.107] CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AND JOINT WRONGDOERS CHAPTER 107 CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AND JOINT WRONGDOERS Act No. 12 of 1968. AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAW RELATING TO CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AND JOINT
More informationCOURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA
Date: 20180914 Docket: CI 13-01-85087 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: Paterson et al. v. Walker et al. Cited as: 2018 MBQB 150 COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA B E T W E E N: SHARRON PATERSON AND ) RUSSELL
More informationIngles v. The Corporation of the City of Toronto Decision of the Supreme Court of Canada dated March 2, 2000
Ingles v. The Corporation of the City of Toronto Decision of the Supreme Court of Canada dated March 2, 2000 (City Council at its regular meeting held on October 3, 4 and 5, 2000, and its Special Meetings
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. and
B E T W E E N: ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE Court File No. TSI INTERNATIONAL CANADA INC. Plaintiff and THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF MILTON, GORDON KRANTZ, WILLIAM F. MANN aka BILL MANN, and BARBARA
More informationTo Seek a Stay or Not to Seek a Stay
To Seek a Stay or Not to Seek a Stay Paul D. Guy and Scott McGrath; WeirFoulds LLP Is seeking a stay of foreign proceedings a prerequisite to obtaining an anti-suit injunction in Canada? An anti-suit injunction
More informationCase Name: Gnanasegaram v. Allianz Insurance Co. of Canada
Page 1 Case Name: Gnanasegaram v. Allianz Insurance Co. of Canada Between Karla Gnanasegaram, plaintiff/appellant, and Allianz Insurance Company of Canada, defendant/respondent [2005] O.J. No. 1076 251
More informationAgreement for the Supply of Legal Services by a Barrister in a Commercial Case
Agreement for the Supply of Legal Services by a Barrister in a Commercial Case The Barrister and the Solicitor agree that the Barrister will supply the Services for the benefit of the Lay Client on the
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE COMMERCIAL LIST
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE COMMERCIAL LIST Court File No: CV-12-9780-00CL BETWEEN: MARCUS WIDE of Grant Thornton (British Virgin Islands) Limited, and HUGH DICKSON, of Grant Thornton Specialist
More informationSUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE FEDERAL COURT AND IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL. A Discussion Paper of the Rules Subcommittee on Summary Judgment
1 SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE FEDERAL COURT AND IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL A Discussion Paper of the Rules Subcommittee on Summary Judgment I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of summary judgment is to dispose
More informationTHE REALITY OF TENDERING WHY REAL ESTATE LAWYERS GIVE FUEL FOR LITIGATORS TO SUE THEM
THE REALITY OF TENDERING WHY REAL ESTATE LAWYERS GIVE FUEL FOR LITIGATORS TO SUE THEM Safeguarding the transaction-the old school rules Much has been written about tendering and the hows and whys of doing
More informationONTARIO LTD. and ONTARIO INC., Plaintiffs
COURT FILE NO.: 06-CV-311330CP DATE: 20070328 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: BEFORE: COUNSEL: 2038724 ONTARIO LTD. and 2036250 ONTARIO INC., Plaintiffs - and - QUIZNO S CANADA RESTAURANT CORPORATION,
More informationSECURITY SERVICES AND INVESTIGATORS ACT
Province of Alberta Statutes of Alberta, Current as of January 1, 2017 Office Consolidation Published by Alberta Queen s Printer Alberta Queen s Printer 7 th Floor, Park Plaza 10611-98 Avenue Edmonton,
More informationCHARITY & NFP LAW BULLETIN NO. 418
CHARITY & NFP LAW BULLETIN NO. 418 MARCH 29, 2018 EDITOR: TERRANCE S. CARTER COURT REVIEWS COMMON EMPLOYER DOCTRINE By Barry W. Kwasniewski * A. INTRODUCTION On February 5, 2018, the Ontario Superior Court
More informationLimitations Act 2002: A huge reform of existing law
Limitations Act 2002: A huge reform of existing law by Graeme Mew Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP On December 9, 2002, the Ontario legislature passed Bill 213 - the Justice Statute Law Amendment Act - by
More informationTRIBUNAL D APPEL EN MATIÈRE DE PERMIS
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunals Ontario TRIBUNAL D APPEL EN MATIÈRE DE PERMIS Tribunaux de la sécurité, des appels en matière de permis et des normes Ontario Tribunal
More informationTiming it right: Limitation periods in personal injury claims
July 2011 page 72 Timing it right: Limitation periods in personal injury claims By SIMONE HERBERT-LOWE Simone Herbert-Lowe is a senior claims solicitor with LawCover and is an Accredited Specialist in
More informationIN THE MATTER OF THE SECURITIES ACT R.S.O. 1990, C. S.5, AS AMENDED - AND. IN THE MATTER OF DAVID CHARLES PHILLIPS and JOHN RUSSELL WILSON
Ontario Commission des 22 nd Floor 22e étage Securities valeurs mobilières 20 Queen Street West 20, rue queen ouest Commission de l Ontario Toronto ON M5H 3S8 Toronto ON M5H 3S8 IN THE MATTER OF THE SECURITIES
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Filed 11/18/14 Escalera v. Tung CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
More informationCOURT FILE NO.: 07-CV DATE: SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ONTARIO RE: BEFORE: A1 PRESSURE SENSITIVE PRODUCTS INC. (Plaintiff) v. BOSTIK IN
COURT FILE NO.: 07-CV-344028 DATE: 20091218 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ONTARIO RE: BEFORE: A1 PRESSURE SENSITIVE PRODUCTS INC. (Plaintiff) v. BOSTIK INC. (Defendant) Justice Stinson COUNSEL: Kevin D. Sherkin,
More informationCONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE ACT
c t CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE ACT PLEASE NOTE This document, prepared by the Legislative Counsel Office, is an office consolidation of this Act, current to December 2, 2015. It is intended for information
More information