Aird & Berlis LLP v. Oravital Inc.

Aird & Berlis LLP v. Oravital Inc.

The motion judge erred in law by resolving disputed issues of causation and the solicitors' duty on summary judgment; there were genuine, contentious inconsistencies that required a trial, so the appeal is allowed, the judgment and dismissal of the counterclaim are set aside, and the matters are remitted to trial.

Citation
2018 ONCA 164
Parties
Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim (respondent): Aird & Berlis LLP; Defendants/plaintiffs by Counterclaim (appellant): Oravital Inc.; Defendants/plaintiffs by Counterclaim (appellant): Alliance H. Inc.
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Professional Negligence and Collection / Appeal From Summary Judgment; Court of Appeal Allowed Appeal, Set Aside Judgment and Remitted Claim and Counterclaim to Trial
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment and dismissal of counterclaim set aside; claim and counterclaim remitted to trial
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Causation, Duty of Care, Damages Assessment, Remittal to Trial
Source Language
English
Civil Professional Negligence Solicitor Client Procedure Summary Judgment Causation Duty of Care Damages Assessment +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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aird & Berlis LLP

Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim (respondent)

Oravital Inc.

Defendants/plaintiffs by Counterclaim (appellant)

Alliance H. Inc.

Defendants/plaintiffs by Counterclaim (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Professional Negligence and Collection / Appeal From Summary Judgment; Court of Appeal Allowed Appeal, Set Aside Judgment and Remitted Claim and Counterclaim to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the motion judge erred in finding no causal link between the solicitor's conduct and the continuation of the underlying litigation
  2. 2 Whether the solicitors breached their duty by failing to advise the clients meaningfully about the legal basis for damages and the risks of litigation
  3. 3 Whether the issues could properly be determined on summary judgment pursuant to Rule 20.04(2.1) or required a trial

Ratio Decidendi

The motion judge erred in law by resolving disputed issues of causation and the solicitors' duty on summary judgment; there were genuine, contentious inconsistencies that required a trial, so the appeal is allowed, the judgment and dismissal of the counterclaim are set aside, and the matters are remitted to trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment and dismissal of counterclaim set aside; claim and counterclaim remitted to trial

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Judgment and dismissal of counterclaim set aside