Pinsky v. 2479420 Ontario Inc.
The appeal was dismissed because the motion judge properly found the action to be an abuse of process: it contravened s.2(1) of the Solicitors Act by being commenced within one month of delivery of the solicitor's bill, the appellant lacked required leave to proceed under s.8 and to file further materials contrary...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2024 ONCA 901
- Parties
- Appellant: Andrey Pinsky; Respondent: 2479420 Ontario Inc.; Respondent: James Leduchowski; Respondent: Diane Hachey
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 13 December 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Decision on Appeal From Superior Court Order
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- S.2(1) Solicitors Act, S.8 Solicitors Act, Abuse of Process, Leave Nunc Pro Tunc, Amendment of Statement of Claim, Burden of Proof
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Andrey Pinsky
Appellant
2479420 Ontario Inc.
Respondent
James Leduchowski
Respondent
Diane Hachey
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Decision on Appeal From Superior Court Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the action contravened s.2(1) of the Solicitors Act by being commenced within one month of delivery of the solicitor's bill
- 2 Whether the motion judge should have granted leave, nunc pro tunc, to permit an action under s.8 of the Solicitors Act
- 3 Whether dismissal of the motion to further amend the statement of claim caused procedural unfairness
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the motion judge properly found the action to be an abuse of process: it contravened s.2(1) of the Solicitors Act by being commenced within one month of delivery of the solicitor's bill, the appellant lacked required leave to proceed under s.8 and to file further materials contrary to the case conference order, and the findings on amendment and burden of proof were not erroneous.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Order of the motion judge affirmed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Pinsky v. 2479420 Ontario Inc. Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2024-12-13 Neutral citation 2024 ONCA 901 Docket numbers COA-23-CV-0865 Judges Brown, David M.; Huscroft, Grant; Miller, Bradley Subject Civil Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Pinsky v. 2479420 Ontario Inc., 2024 ONCA 901 DATE: 20241213 DOCKET: COA-23-CV-0865 Brown, Huscroft and Miller JJ.A. BETWEEN Andrey Pinsky Plaintiff (Appellant) and 2479420 Ontario Inc., James Leduchowski and Diane Hachey Defendants (Respondents) Andrey Pinsky, acting in person Morris J. Holervich, for the respondents Heard: December 10, 2024 On appeal from the order of Justice W. Danial Newton of the Superior Court of Justice, dated June 27, 2023. REASONS FOR DECISION [1] This is an appeal from the order of the motion judge dismissing the appellant’s action as an abuse of process. The motion judge found that the action contravened s. 2(1) of the Solicitors Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.15. He declined to grant leave, nunc pro tunc, to allow the appellant to bring an action under s. 8 of the Solicitors Act. [2] The appellant makes numerous claims of error, but in his factum argues specifically that the motion judge erred by: (a) failing to conclude that his action was the appropriate way to proceed because the respondents disputed the nature and scope of his retainer; (b) causing procedural unfairness by dismissing his motion to further amend his statement of claim; and (c) reversing the burden of proof. We do not agree. [3] Whether the respondents disputed the nature and scope of the appellant’s retainer has no bearing on the dismissal of his action. Section 2(1) of the Solicitors Act prohibits actions within one month of the delivery of a solicitor’s bill, and the appellant brought his action within less than a week. [4] The motion judge’s dismissal of the appellant’s motion to amend his statement of claim did not result in procedural unfairness. The case conference judge had ordered that no further material be served or filed without advance leave of the court. The appellant did not have leave. [5] The motion judge did not reverse the burden of proof. His finding that the action was an abuse of process is amply supported by the record. [6] The appeal is dismissed. The respondent is entitled to costs of $3,000 all-inclusive. “David Brown J.A.” “Grant Huscroft J.A.” “B.W. Miller J.A.”