The plaintiffs had the misfortune to purchase a leaky new home from Thermolith Homes Limited. . Their troubles might have been avoided if the engineer hired by Thermolith, had not negligently certified the design and construction of the home. The home did not meet the standards set by Ontario’s building code. Unfortunately, the lawyer the plaintiffs hired to sue those responsible for building and selling them a defective home was also negligent.
A split decision: Justices MacPherson, Cronk side with the Law Society. Justice Brown sides with the accused lawyer for successfully defending a senior officer and director of Bre-X Minerals Ltd. Following a lengthy trial, Mr. Felderhof was acquitted of all charges. In November 2009, after the trial had concluded, the Law Society initiated disciplinary proceedings against Mr. Groia alleging that he had engaged in professional misconduct during his defence of Mr. Felderhof
At the heart of this appeal lies the importance of public confidence in the administration of justice and, in that context, the court’s supervisory role over the appropriate compensation for legal services. This claim was settled in July 2013 for $800,000. A contingency retainer agreement provided for payment of fees equal to 35% of damages recovered, plus disbursements but in the end the lawyers were asserting claims of fees and disbursements in an aggregate amount in excess of $422,000 – almost two-thirds of the $695,000 allocated to the appellant and his sons..
A judge who exhibits principles and integrity. " With that background in mind, I feel obliged to point out that, separate from our previous public interest and community advocacy activities, Mr. Landy and I are friends. Having been a member of the bar for nearly 30 years, I have many friends who are lawyers and would not ordinarily recuse myself from hearing one of them as counsel. However, I would not want to hear a matter where Mr. Landy’s personal credibility is an issue."
The cost consequences of 'Offers to Settle' can be poorly understood by lawyers and judges alike, but can have devastating effects. At issue in this appeal is the interpretation of an accepted offer to settle. In particular, did the offer to accept “$50,000 plus HST in full and complete satisfaction of the [appellant’s] claim” include the appellant’s claim for costs? Or did silence in the offer, on the matter of costs, mean that r. 49.07(5)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure applied?
This is an assessment of solicitor and client accounts rendered by the law firm Gibsons LLP (hereinafter “Gibsons” or “the law firm”) for the provision of legal services to the applicant Robert Steen in his capacity as executor of the estate of his late mother Gwendoline Cuttance Steen who died on December 10, 2005. There are 20 accounts or invoices, the first dated January 31, 2006 and the last dated April 24, 2009. They total $192,567.99.. In summary, for the reasons set out above, I direct the law firm to repay to Robert Steen the amount of $73,000
Leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from the Order of Matlow J. dated February 13, 2015. The failure to give reasons is an error of law. On that basis alone I have reason to doubt the correctness of the decision made by the motion judge. I am completely unable to discern the basis for his decision from the reasons provided, nor is the basis for it obvious from the materials that were before him. Further, this is an issue that affects the public perception of the justice system. As stated by Epstein J. (as she then was) in Vine Hotels Inc. v. Frumcor Investments Ltd.,  O.J. No. 4768, “a failure to provide a reasoned decision tends to undermine confidence in the administration of justice as the absence of reasons may give the appearance of an arbitrary decision, particularly in the eyes of the unsuccessful party.”
Biased Hearing: I order that the Report and Certificate of Regional Hearings Officer Robert J. Girard on the Solicitor’s account with respect to the Client, dated November 29, 2013, be set aside. I conclude that the Client must succeed on the ground that she was denied natural justice at the hearing, and I therefore I set aside the Hearing Officer’s Report and Certificate of Assessment, and the Writs of Seizure and Sale and Notices of Garnishment that are based on them.
Where there has been a finding of guilt that has been undisturbed on appeal, allegations of ineffective representation generally should be made by way of a direct attack in the context of the criminal proceeding, (Folland v. Reardon (2005) 74 O.R. (3d) 688 (C.A.) at para.100) and not by way of a separate civil proceeding.
The Hearing Panel established that the appellant acted for investors on fourteen real estate transactions by which these investors purchased allegedly undervalued houses and then resold them to purchasers who could afford to purchase a house but who could not afford to come up with the requisite down payment. The transactions were orchestrated in a manner whereby the individuals who purchased these houses from the investors made no financial contribution to the purchase price of the houses. Rather, the entire purchase price was financed by the unsuspecting institutional lenders including the costs of the transactions along with a profit for the investors.
The Plaintiff has indicated that she had retained what she thought was a law firm to represent her in this matter, but she states that she was misled by a firm holding themselves out as a firm of “lawyers and paralegals” who charged her a significant amount of money. Apparently it was that firm that drafted the Amended Statement of Claim. These are disturbing allegations. Stinson J. endorsed the record at the first appearance in this motion on October 7, 2013 asking counsel for Apotex to assist the Plaintiff by reporting to the Law Society the Plaintiff’s troubles with the firm that misled her. Counsel has advised me today that a report has indeed been submitted to the Law Society.
Mr. Telfer, visited with him at his home and gave him advice about what he could do to resolve the situation. In the circumstances, Mr. Kerr believed that Mr. Telfer was acting as his solicitor. Accordingly, Mr. Kerr contends that this conduct constitutes bad faith. Notably, in the material before the Court, Mr. Kerr’s contention regarding Mr. Telfer’s attendance at his home, in the circumstances described, stands alone, uncontested
THIS COURT ORDERS THAT: - Counsel John Parr Telfer be removed as solicitor of record for the plaintiff Chromascan Inc;