Inspektor v. Solmon

Inspektor v. Solmon

The motion judge correctly applied the summary judgment test, found documentary evidence and correspondence established the appellants were informed and agreed to settlement terms and that there was no evidence of improper billing or misappropriation sufficient to raise a genuine issue for trial; therefore dismissal of the action on summary judgment was proper.

Citation
2018 ONCA 796
Parties
Plaintiffs (appellants): Lynette C. Inspektor and Eric R. Inspektor; Defendant (respondent): Melvyn L. Solmon
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Summary Judgment / Court of Appeal Decision on Motion to Dismiss (summary Judgment)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; order of motion judge dismissing action on summary judgment upheld
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Legal Malpractice, Fee Disputes, Misappropriation Allegation, Discretion to Release Hearing Recordings
Source Language
English
Civil Litigation Professional Negligence Procedural Law Costs Summary Judgment Legal Malpractice Fee Disputes Misappropriation Allegation +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lynette C. Inspektor and Eric R. Inspektor

Plaintiffs (appellants)

Melvyn L. Solmon

Defendant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Summary Judgment / Court of Appeal Decision on Motion to Dismiss (summary Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent was professionally negligent in negotiating settlement (including failure to secure a non‑disparagement clause)
  2. 2 Whether respondent misappropriated funds or failed to account for funds secured by mortgage
  3. 3 Whether there was a genuine issue for trial such that summary judgment was inappropriate

Ratio Decidendi

The motion judge correctly applied the summary judgment test, found documentary evidence and correspondence established the appellants were informed and agreed to settlement terms and that there was no evidence of improper billing or misappropriation sufficient to raise a genuine issue for trial; therefore dismissal of the action on summary judgment was proper.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; order of motion judge dismissing action on summary judgment upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs to respondent in the amount of $3,200 inclusive of disbursements and HST