In Gayle v. Cambridge Mercantile Corp., the Court dismissed an appeal of the dismissal of a professional negligence claim against the appellant’s former lawyers for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and negligence in a settlement she made with her former employer in a wrongful dismissal case. The Court agreed with the motion judge and found there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.
In Shaulov v. Law Society of Ontario, the appellant sued the LSO and others as a result of his failure to obtain his law licence after failing the barrister’s bar exam four times. His claim against the non-LSO defendants was struck as disclosing no cause of action, with no leave to amend. He then moved to add the non-LSO defendants as necessary parties to the outstanding claim against the LSO, and to amend his claim to plead negligence against the non-LSO defendants. The Court held that the motion judge correctly found the issue of whether the non-LSO defendants could be added as necessary parties had been “finally determined” in the prior motion that struck the claim against them (and that the attempt to add them again was therefore an abuse of process), and that the proposed negligence claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.
Rodriguez-Vergara v. Lamoureux was a priority/coverage dispute between motor vehicle insurers where there was an accident involving an underinsured driver.
In Happy v. Narouz, the Court dismissed an appeal in a fact-specific family law case.
Lee v. Chang was a breach of contract and deceit case. The plaintiffs lost at trial and on appeal. A tran of a recording they relied upon was excluded as unreliable because it had not been prepared by an accredited translator.
Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. R.E. was a child protection case.
Other topics covered included extension of time to appeal.