Eric Williams represented the complainant seeking judicial review of the CITT's decision to dismiss its complaint. The Federal Court of Appeal remitted the matter back to the CITT for hearing on certain issues. The CITT ruled against Xwave and refused to grant an oral hearing with reference to the government’s “intention” in drafting the R.F.P. The F.C.A. agreed with the government—holding the CITT was not in breach of the Rules of Natural Justice in failing to order an oral hearing.
Eric and Jeremy acted for the Plaintiff who brought an action for breach of contract in relation to the purchase and sale of property. The case involved issues of ostensible authority, whether a contract existed, the Statue of Frauds, the doctrine of part-performance, and the relatively new cause of action “proprietary estoppel”. Campbell Pools leased commercial land from the Defendant for many years until a heavy snowstorm destroyed his leased premises. Under the lease, the Defendant was required to rebuild the destroyed structures. Campbell Pools negotiated with the Defendant’s agent to forego the Defendant’s obligations under the lease and part of the insurance proceeds received in exchange for the outright purchase of the lands. At trial, Eric and Jeremy successfully argued that the agent had ostensible authority to bind the Defendant, the agreement satisfied the Statute of Frauds despite being a ‘napkin agreement’, part-performance was established, and that, alternatively, the relatively new cause of action of “proprietary estoppel” applied. The Court awarded specific performance of the agreement of purchase and sale and our client was awarded the property.
In Bastien v. Egalite, Ms. Barber, representing one of three lawyers, successfully brought a motion to strike against the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs alleged that all three lawyers were negligent because they failed to take steps to rescind or cancel the purchase of their condominium unit. The lawyers argued that the plaintiffs did not suffer any damages attributable to their action or failure to take action as it was not possible to rescind the purchase without the vendors’ consent, which was refused. The Court agreed with the Defendants and the Plaintiffs’ case was dismissed against all three lawyers.
Ashlee Barber was successful in having the Plaintiff’s defamation claim against the Ottawa Capital Area Crime Stoppers dismissed on a summary judgment motion.
Our fimr represented the employer in this wrongful dismissal case, which found the employer was correct in terminating with cause
Our firm represented the plaintiff in Canada’s first wrongful dismissal case to see damages awarded to an employee for burnout.
Ms. Ashlee Barber, acted for the Defendant Summary Judgment Motion brought by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff claimed entitlement to an unpaid bonus which his employer, the Defendant, refused to pay on the grounds that the Plaintiff forfeited his entitlement to the bonus payment when he resigned his job. The Court found that the Plaintiff was aware of the active employment clause for the payment of the bonus, and that the clause was clear and unambiguous. The Court also found that the active employment clause complied with the Employment Standards Act. The Plaintiff’s case was dismissed. Ms. Barber was successful in responding to the Plaintiff's appeal.
Eric Williams successfully represented the defendant solicitor and law firm (John T. Clark, Clarks), against claims of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence, who advised a client on the application of the Planning Act and the Residential Complex Sales Representation Act to the construction of a 50 unit life lease housing complex.
In Ugarrit Inc. v. Pooran, 2013 ONSC 6713, the plaintiffs unsuccessfully moved to add two lawyers as party defendants to an existing negligence action, which arose from a fire loss claim that had become statute barred. Ms. Barber represented one of the two lawyers, successfully arguing that the lawyer was never retained to advance a fire loss claim. The motion against both lawyers was dismissed.
Eric Williams and Kelly Hart successfully defended a solicitor at trial involving a scope of retainer dispute. The court confirmed that any duty to a client is limited to the scope of the retainer. A “limited retainer” describes circumstances such as where a solicitor is conducting a real estate transaction without search of title and advises the client that the work being done is less than usual.
This is differentiated from this case where the solicitor was retained for a disability claim and advised the client orally of other potential claims. While the solicitor orally confirmed his non-retainer on the other claims, he did not put this in explicitly in writing. This was not a case of limited retainer, and the failure to send a letter of non-retainer was not a breach of the standard of care. The trial decision was upheld at the Court of Appeal.
