Ontario civil | Civil Practice and Procedure | Summary judgment | General principles
Defendant company purchased former railway yard from plaintiff, and plaintiff disclosed to company and its principals, defendants P and C, that soil was contaminated. Plaintiff brought action against defendants after they defaulted on vendor take back mortgage. Company and P claimed that third party solicitors who acted for company in transaction were negligent, and they sought damages. Solicitor M was retained on transaction from May 2006 to June 2008, while solicitors T and G were retained on closing of transaction from September to November 2008. Solicitors successfully brought motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of claims against them. Defendants appealed. Appeal dismissed. Having regard to motion judge’s factual findings, she was justified in finding there was no issue for trial in respect of the claim against M. Finding that M’s role in relation to the first agreement did not extend to investigation of any risks flowing from Director’s order effectively brought end to any negligence claim in relation to M’s involvement.
Canadian National Railway Company v. Crosslink Bridge Corp. (2019), 2019 CarswellOnt 6382, 2019 ONCA 349, Doherty J.A., D.M. Paciocco J.A., and B. Zarnett J.A. (Ont. C.A.); affirmed (2018), 2018 CarswellOnt 15691, 2018 ONSC 5475, Dietrich J. (Ont. S.C.J.).
Case Law is a weekly summary of notable civil and criminal court decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Canada and all Ontario courts. These cases may be found online in WestlawNext Canada. To subscribe, please visit store.thomsonreuters.ca.
