Amato v. Welsh,

• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Judge: O'Connor, A.C.J.O.*, Simmons and Cronk, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2013 ONCA 258
• Date: 14 November 2012
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)

Amato v. Welsh (2013), 305 O.A.C. 155 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2013] O.A.C. TBEd. AP.044

Davide Amato and S.A. Capital Growth Corp. (plaintiffs/respondents) v. Peter R. Welsh, Aylesworth LLP and Julia Dublin (defendants/appellants)

(C55635; 2013 ONCA 258)

Indexed As: Amato et al. v. Welsh et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

O'Connor, A.C.J.O.*, Simmons and Cronk, JJ.A.

April 24, 2013.

Summary:

Two former clients (plaintiffs) sued the defendants, a law firm (Aylesworth LLP) and two of its lawyers (Dublin and Welsh), alleging negligence and breaches of fiduciary duty and loyalty. In their statement of claim, the plaintiffs relied in part on statements allegedly made or omitted by Dublin during the examinations of two other Aylesworth clients conducted by the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) representatives in the course of a formal OSC investigation. Aylesworth and Dublin (defendants) moved to strike certain paragraphs of the plaintiffs' pleading, arguing that the impugned paragraphs disclosed no reasonable cause of action (Civil Procedure Rule 21.01(1)(b)), because the matters alleged in those paragraphs were protected by absolute privilege and, hence, were not actionable.

The Ontario Superior Court, in a decision with neutral citation 2011 ONSC 1314, dismissed the application to strike. The defendants appealed.

The Ontario Divisional Court, in a decision with neutral citation 2012 ONSC 334, but not reported in this series of reports, dismissed the appeal. The defendants appealed again.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Editor's Note*: O'Connor, A.C.J.O., took no part in the judgment.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 5

General - Absolute privilege - The Ontario Court of Appeal discussed the nature and scope of the doctrine of absolute privilege - The court stated that, where applicable, the doctrine of absolute privilege afforded complete immunity to advocates and others for statements made by them in the course of judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings - See paragraphs 34 to 39.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 5

General - Absolute privilege - Two former clients sued a lawyer (Dublin) and her firm (defendants), alleging negligence and breaches of fiduciary duty and loyalty - In their statement of claim, the clients relied on statements allegedly made or omitted by Dublin in proceedings involving two other clients of the firm before the Ontario Securities Commission - The defendants moved to strike certain paragraphs of the clients' statement of claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action (Civil Procedure Rule 21.01(1)(b)), because the matters alleged in those paragraphs were protected by absolute privilege and, hence, were not actionable - The Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed that the pleadings should not be struck - The clients' claims based on the challenged paragraphs, although not certain to succeed, were also not plainly and obviously destined to fail - The matter should be allowed to proceed to trial - See paragraphs 26 to 97.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 5

General - Absolute privilege - The Ontario Court of Appeal discussed the lawyer's duty of loyalty - The court also discussed what would happen when the lawyer's duty of loyalty and the doctrine of absolute privilege came into conflict - See paragraphs 58 to 73.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 1545

Relationship with client - Duty to client - General - Obligation of loyalty - [See third Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 5 ].

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 2905

Negligence - Defences - Immunity of litigation lawyers - [See second Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 5 ].

Evidence - Topic 4107.2

Witnesses - Privilege - General - Absolute privilege - [See first and second Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 5 ].

Practice - Topic 2233

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Privilege or immunity - [See second Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 5 ].

Cases Noticed:

Samuel Manu-Tech Inc. v. Redipac Recycling Corp. et al. (1999), 124 O.A.C. 125; 1999 CarswellOnt 2764 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 1, footnote 1].

Demarco v. Ungaro (1979), 21 O.R.(2d) 673 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 14].

Hunt v. T & N plc et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959; 117 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 31].

Reynolds v. Kingston Police Services Board et al. (2007), 221 O.A.C. 216; 2007 ONCA 166, refd to. [para. 32].

Lowe v. Guarantee Co. of North America et al. (2005), 200 O.A.C. 236; 80 O.R.(3d) 222 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

Hargreaves v. Bretherton and Another, [1958] 3 All E.R. 122 (Q.B.D.), refd to. [para. 35].

Dooley v. Weber (C.N.) Ltd. (1994), 19 O.R.(3d) 779 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 36].

More v. Weaver, [1928] 2 K.B. 520; [1928] All E.R. Rep. 160 (Eng. C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

Munster v. Lamb (1883), 11 Q.B.D. 588 (Eng. C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

Mann v. O'Neill, [1997] H.C.A. 28; 71 A.L.J.R. 903 (H.C. Australia), refd to. [para. 37].

Rondel v. Worsley, [1969] 1 A.C. 191 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 42].

Hedley Byrne & Co. v. Heller & Partners, [1964] A.C. 465 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 42].

Saif Ali v. Sydney Mitchell & Co., [1980] A.C. 198; [1978] 3 W.L.R. 849; [1978] 3 All E.R. 1033 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 44].

Rees v. Sinclair, [1974] 1 N.Z.L.R. 180 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

Hall (Arthur J.S.) & Co. v. Simons, [2002] 1 A.C. 615; 258 N.R. 1; [2000] UKHL 38, refd to. [para. 45].

Chamberlains v. Lai, [2006] N.Z.S.C. 70, refd to. [para. 46].

D'Orta-Ekenaike v. Victoria Legal Aid, [2005] H.C.A. 12, refd to. [para. 49, footnote 5].

Wong v. Thomson, Rogers, 1994 CanLII 841 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

Wernikowski v. Kirkland, Murphy & Ain (1999), 128 O.A.C. 33; 50 O.R.(3d) 124 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Neil (D.L.), [2002] 3 S.C.R. 631; 294 N.R. 201; 317 A.R. 73; 284 W.A.C. 73; 2002 SCC 70, refd to. [para. 59].

3464920 Canada Inc. v. Strother et al., [2007] 2 S.C.R. 177; 363 N.R. 123; 241 B.C.A.C. 108; 399 W.A.C. 108; 2007 SCC 24, refd to. [para. 63].

Wallace v. Canadian Pacific Railway et al. (2011), 375 Sask.R. 218; 525 W.A.C. 218; 2011 SKCA 108, refd to. [para. 63, footnote 6].

Authors and Works Noticed:

American Law Institute, Third Restatement, The Law Governing Lawyers (2000), vol. 2, pp. 244, 245 [para. 62].

Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Ed.), vol. 28, para. 97 [paras. 1, 34, 72, footnote 1].

Williams, Absolute Privilege for Licensing Justices (1909), 24 Law Quarterly Review 188, p. 200 [para. 38].

Counsel:

Peter C. Wardle and Simon Bieber, for the appellants;

Alan B. Merskey and Rahool P. Agarwal, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard on November 14, 2012, before O'Connor, A.C.J.O., Simmons and Cronk, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The following decision was delivered for the court by Cronk, J.A. (Simmons, J.A., concurring), on April 24, 2013. O'Connor, A.C.J.O., took no part in the judgment.