Banzon v. Madsen, [2001] O.T.C. 425 (SupCt)

• Judge: MacKenzie, J.
• Court: Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
• Case Date: June 01, 2001
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: [2001] O.T.C. 425 (SupCt)

Banzon v. Madsen, [2001] O.T.C. 425 (SupCt)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] O.T.C. TBEd. JN.028

Ernest Banzon, Virginia Banzon and 802048 Ontario Limited (plaintiffs) v. Finn Madsen, James Hoyt and 849893 Ontario Limited (defendants)

(C6594/91)

Indexed As: Banzon et al. v. Madsen et al.

Court of Ontario

Superior Court of Justice

MacKenzie, J.

June 1, 2001.

Summary:

This headnote contains no summary.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 1004

Retainer - General principles - Whether lawyer retained - See paragraphs 46 to 58.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 1504

Relationship with client - General - Solicitor-client relationship - What constitutes - See paragraphs 46 to 58.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 4443

Relations with third parties (incl. opposite parties) - Duty to third parties - Unrepresented parties - See paragraphs 60 to 66.

Equity - Topic 3606

Fiduciary or confidential relationships - General principles - What constitutes a fiduciary relationship - See paragraphs 27 to 37.

Partnership - Topic 5161

Relations between partners - Fiduciary duties - General - See paragraphs 27 to 37.

Cases Noticed:

Budrewicz v. Stojanowski et al. (1998), 70 O.T.C. 253; 41 O.R.(3d) 78 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 61].

Kamahap Enterprises Ltd. v. Chu's Central Market Ltd. (1989), 64 D.L.R.(4th) 167 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 64].

Filipovic et al. v. Upshall et al. (1998), 70 O.T.C. 179; 19 R.P.R.(3d) 88 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 65].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Professional Conduct (Ont.), rule 2.04(14) [para. 56].

Counsel:

R.N. Kostyniuk, Q.C., for the plaintiffs;

L. Jackson, for the defendants, Finn Madsen and 849893 Ontario Limited;

J. Lewis, Q.C., for the defendant, James Hoyt.

This action was heard on March 20 and 23, 2001, by MacKenzie, J., of the Ontario Superior Court, who released the following decision on June 1, 2001.

Please note: The following judgment has not been edited.