Canada Case Law

A.T. v A.S.

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Application dismissed because, even without conclusively determining prima facie distribution to counsel, the respondent successfully invoked the s.7(1) public interest defence for sharing the text messages with his lawyer in the solicitor-client context (limited 'small icon'), and the affidavit reference did not itself distribute an intimate image; court lacks authority to grant Criminal Code relief.

Source excerpt

• Distribution of intimate images
• Public interest defence
• Solicitor-client privilege
• Absolute privilege
• Evidentiary admissibility
• Publication ban

Read case analysis

Salloum v. Smith (Smiths IP)

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal refused to extend time to appeal, finding no arguable merit in the proposed appeal from striking and amendment orders. Stay and consolidation were also dismissed.

• Extension of time to appeal
• Striking pleadings
• Abuse of process
• Absolute privilege
• Stay of proceedings
• Consolidation

Read case analysis

Bonner v. Whitelaw Twining LLP

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court struck an amended notice of civil claim against opposing counsel, holding the pleaded allegations were barred by litigation immunity and disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

• Absolute privilege
• Litigation immunity
• Duty of care to opposing parties
• Spoliation of evidence
• Rule 9-5 striking pleadings
• Abuse of process

Read case analysis

Woodske v. Metzner

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court struck a self-represented plaintiff’s claim against opposing family-law counsel, finding no duty of care, absolute privilege, and no reasonable prospect of success.

• Strike pleadings
• Duty of care of opposing counsel
• Absolute privilege
• Abuse of process
• Costs
• Strike-pleadings

Read case analysis

Meffe v. Toronto (City)

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an appeal from a r. 21 dismissal, holding the action was an abuse of process and collateral attack on administrative decisions.

• Abuse of process
• Collateral attack
• Judicial review
• Misfeasance in public office
• Absolute privilege
• Leave to amend

Read case analysis

Rebello v. Ontario (Attorney General)

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The motion judge correctly struck the impugned claims because they disclosed no reasonable cause of action (no private law duty and absolute privilege applied), the 2019 action was an abuse of process because it duplicated claims already litigated or pursued in other proceedings chosen by the appellant, the refusal to adjourn was a proper exercise of judicial discretion, and the costs awards were within the judge's discretion; accordingly the appeal is dismissed and costs fixed.

Source excerpt

• Abuse of process
• Limitation periods
• Duty of care
• Absolute privilege
• Motion to strike
• Leave to amend

Read case analysis

Portnov v. Alexander Holburn + Lang LLP

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court struck Abraham Portnov’s claim against opposing counsel, finding it prolix, incoherent, and an abuse of process, and refused leave to amend.

• Strike pleadings
• Particularity for fraud allegations
• Absolute privilege
• Duty of care of opposing counsel
• Abuse of process
• Res judicata

Read case analysis

Rahman v. Elia Associates

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Assuming the pleaded facts true, the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action because (1) alleged statements are absolutely privileged as litigation communications and thus fraud claims are barred, (2) there is no civil cause of action for perjury, and (3) solicitors owe no duty of care to opposing parties so negligence and fiduciary claims fail; the defects could not be cured by amendment; appeal dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Motion to strike
• Absolute privilege
• Fraud
• Perjury
• Duty of care
• Breach of fiduciary duty

Read case analysis

Kokic v. Johnson

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The appeal was dismissed under r.2.1.01 because the appellant's pleadings disclosed no cause of action: the respondent owed no duty to the appellant absent a solicitor-client relationship, communications made in litigation were protected by absolute privilege, and the action amounted to an impermissible collateral attack attempting to relitigate matters already decided; accordingly the proceeding was frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process.

Source excerpt

• Rule 2.1.01 summary dismissal
• Absolute privilege
• Collateral attack
• Duty of care
• Law society complaints
• Vexatious proceedings

Read case analysis

Curtis v. McCague Borlack LLP

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court upheld the motion judge’s striking of the statement of claim as disclosing no cause of action due to absolute privilege for communications related to the Rebello proceedings, struck the claim against the spouse for lack of involvement, but granted limited leave to Mr. Curtis to amend within 30 days to plead only a malicious prosecution claim against Eric Turkienicz and McCague Borlack LLP; the motion judge’s costs award of $18,154 on a substantial indemnity basis was upheld and no costs of the appeal were ordered.

Source excerpt

• Absolute privilege
• Malicious prosecution
• Motion to strike
• Leave to amend
• Costs
• Default noting

Read case analysis