Martin v. Goldfarb et al., (1998) 112 O.A.C. 138 (CA)
Court | Court of Appeal (Ontario) |
Case Date | August 26, 1998 |
Jurisdiction | Ontario |
Citations | (1998), 112 O.A.C. 138 (CA);1998 CanLII 4150 (NS CA);1998 CanLII 4150 (ON CA);41 OR (3d) 161;163 DLR (4th) 639;44 BLR (2d) 158;42 CCLT (2d) 271;[1998] CarswellOnt 3319;[1998] OJ No 3403 (QL);112 OAC 138;12 CPC (5th) 222;82 ACWS (3d) 175 |
Martin v. Goldfarb (1998), 112 O.A.C. 138 (CA)
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [1998] O.A.C. TBEd. SE.007
Robert E. Martin (plaintiff/respondent) v. Clifford Goldfarb, Farano, Green and Aleksandra Kurowska-Barrie (defendants/appellants)
(C27477)
Indexed As: Martin v. Goldfarb et al.
Ontario Court of Appeal
Finlayson and Carthy JJ.A. and Then, J.(ad hoc)
August 26, 1998.
Summary:
Martin entered into certain business and real estate transactions with Axton, who had a recent conviction for mortgage fraud. Martin alleged that Goldfarb, a lawyer, failed to make timely and material disclosure of Axton's true identity and criminal background. Martin alleged that Axton's fraudulent activities caused him to fall from a net worth of over $18,000,000 to abject destitution. After his discharge from bankruptcy in 1992, Martin claimed damages against Goldfarb and Goldfarb's law firm for breach of fiduciary duty owed to him and his companies and, alternatively, for negligence. A claim against Kurowska-Barrie, in-house counsel for Axton's company, was settled prior to trial.
The Ontario Court (General Division), in a decision reported 30 O.T.C. 321, allowed Martin's action and awarded $5,949,447 in damages plus prejudgment interest at 7% from January 11, 1990. Goldfarb and his firm appealed.
The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part. The court held that the damage award could not stand and remitted the matter to the trial judge to determine the proper award of damages.
Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 1548
Relationship with client - Duty to client - General - Fiduciary duty - Martin entered into business transactions with Axton - Martin hired a lawyer, Goldfarb, who knew that Axton had a fraud conviction, but failed to tell Martin - Martin claimed that Axton's fraudulent activities caused him financial ruin - Martin sued Goldfarb and his law firm for breach of fiduciary duty owed to him and his companies - The trial judge allowed Martin's action and awarded $5,949,447 damages - Goldfarb appealed - The Ontario Court of Appeal ordered a reassessment of damages - Firstly, damages should have been limited to the direct loss caused to Martin personally through his dealings with Axton only after he retained Goldfarb - Secondly, the losses suffered by Martin personally should have been distinguished from those suffered by his corporations - Thirdly, there was a lack of cogent evidence to support the damage award.
Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 1554
Relationship with client - Duty to client - General - Duty to inform client - [See Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 1548 ].
Damages - Topic 803
Assessment - Where amount of loss difficult to estimate or determine - The Ontario Court of Appeal stated "... that it is a well-established principle that where damages in a particular case are by their inherent nature difficult to assess, the court must do the best it can in the circumstances. That is not to say, however, that a litigant is relieved of his or her duty to prove the facts upon which the damages are estimated. The distinction drawn in the various authorities, as I see it, is that where the assessment is difficult because of the nature of the damage proved, the difficulty of assessment is no ground for refusing substantial damages even to the point of resorting to guesswork. However, where the absence of evidence makes it impossible to assess damages, the litigant is entitled to nominal damages at best." - See paragraph 75.
Damages - Topic 4010
Interference with economic relations - Breach of fiduciary relationship - By lawyer - [See Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 1548 ].
Equity - Topic 3655
Fiduciary or confidential relationships - Breach of fiduciary relationship - Damages - [See Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 1548 ].
Cases Noticed:
Frame v. Smith and Smith, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 99; 78 N.R. 40; 23 O.A.C. 84, refd to. [para. 31].
Air Canada v. M & L Travel Ltd., Martin and Valliant, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 787; 159 N.R. 1; 67 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 34].
Canson Enterprises Ltd. et al. v. Boughton & Co. et al., [1991] 3 S.C.R. 534; 131 N.R. 321; 6 B.C.A.C. 1; 13 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 34].
Hodgkinson v. Simms et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 377; 171 N.R. 245; 49 B.C.A.C. 1; 80 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 34].
R. v. Rukland (1998), 123 C.C.C.(3d) 262 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].
Foss v. Harbottle (1843), 2 Hare 460; 67 E.R. 189, refd to. [para. 59].
Hercules Management Ltd. et al. v. Ernst & Young et al., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 165; 211 N.R. 352; 115 Man. R. 241; 139 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 60].
Goldex Mines Ltd. v. Revill et al. (1974), 7 O.R.(2d) 216 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 62].
Hoskin v. Price Waterhouse Ltd. et al. (1982), 37 O.R.(2d) 464 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 64].
Wood v. Grand Valley Railway Co. (1915), 51 S.C.R. 283, refd to. [para. 70].
Chapman v. Hicks, [1911] 2 K.B. 786 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 71].
Radcliffe v. Evans, [1892] 2 Q.B. 524, refd to. [para. 73].
Toronto Transit Commission v. Aqua Taxi Ltd. et al., [1957] O.W.N. 65 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 74].
Williamson v. Stephenson (1903), 33 S.C.R. 323, refd to. [para. 75].
Penvidic Contracting Co. Ltd. v. International Nickel Co. of Canada Ltd. (1975), 4 N.R. 1; 53 D.L.R.(3d) 748 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 75].
Counsel:
Geoffrey D.E. Adair, Q.C., and Krista Springstead, for the appellants;
William G. Dingwall, Q.C., and Thomas S. Kent, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on May 19 and 20, 1998, before Finlayson and Carthy, JJ.A., and Then, J.(ad hoc), of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The following decision was delivered for the court by Finlayson, J.A., and released on August 26, 1998.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
3464920 Canada Inc. v. Strother et al., (2007) 241 B.C.A.C. 108 (SCC)
...144 N.R. 307 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 55]. Williams v. Reed (1824), 29 F. Cas. 1386, refd to. [para. 55]. Martin v. Goldfarb et al. (1998), 112 O.A.C. 138; 41 O.R.(3d) 161 (C.A.), refd to. [para. Waxman et al. v. Waxman et al. (2004), 186 O.A.C. 201 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 58]. Uniform Custo......
-
3464920 Canada Inc. v. Strother et al., (2007) 363 N.R. 123 (SCC)
...144 N.R. 307 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 55]. Williams v. Reed (1824), 29 F. Cas. 1386, refd to. [para. 55]. Martin v. Goldfarb et al. (1998), 112 O.A.C. 138; 41 O.R.(3d) 161 (C.A.), refd to. [para. Waxman et al. v. Waxman et al. (2004), 186 O.A.C. 201 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 58]. Uniform Custo......
-
Court Of Appeal Summaries (May 31 ' June 4)
...[1997] 2 S.C.R. 165, Meditrust Healthcare Inc. v. Shoppers Drug Mart (2002), 220 D.L.R. (4th) 611 (Ont. C.A.), Martin v. Goldfarb (1998), 41 O.R. (3d) 161 (C.A.) Valoris for children and adults of Prescott-Russell v KR , 2021 ONCA 366 Keywords: Family Law, Custody and Access, Supervised Vis......
-
Shelanu Inc. v. Print Three Franchising, (2003) 172 O.A.C. 78 (CA)
...Inc. v. Ellis-Don Construction Ltd., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 943; 277 N.R. 1; 153 O.A.C. 341, refd to. [para. 130]. Martin v. Goldfarb et al. (1998), 112 O.A.C. 138; 41 O.R.(3d) 161 (C.A.), refd to. [para. Authors and Works Noticed: Anson's Law of Contract (27th Ed. 1998), pp. 494, 495 [para. 48]. ......
-
3464920 Canada Inc. v. Strother et al., (2007) 241 B.C.A.C. 108 (SCC)
...144 N.R. 307 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 55]. Williams v. Reed (1824), 29 F. Cas. 1386, refd to. [para. 55]. Martin v. Goldfarb et al. (1998), 112 O.A.C. 138; 41 O.R.(3d) 161 (C.A.), refd to. [para. Waxman et al. v. Waxman et al. (2004), 186 O.A.C. 201 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 58]. Uniform Custo......
-
3464920 Canada Inc. v. Strother et al., (2007) 363 N.R. 123 (SCC)
...144 N.R. 307 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 55]. Williams v. Reed (1824), 29 F. Cas. 1386, refd to. [para. 55]. Martin v. Goldfarb et al. (1998), 112 O.A.C. 138; 41 O.R.(3d) 161 (C.A.), refd to. [para. Waxman et al. v. Waxman et al. (2004), 186 O.A.C. 201 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 58]. Uniform Custo......
-
Shelanu Inc. v. Print Three Franchising, (2003) 172 O.A.C. 78 (CA)
...Inc. v. Ellis-Don Construction Ltd., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 943; 277 N.R. 1; 153 O.A.C. 341, refd to. [para. 130]. Martin v. Goldfarb et al. (1998), 112 O.A.C. 138; 41 O.R.(3d) 161 (C.A.), refd to. [para. Authors and Works Noticed: Anson's Law of Contract (27th Ed. 1998), pp. 494, 495 [para. 48]. ......
-
Dhillon v. Jaffer, 2016 BCCA 119
...What is required is a measure of rationalization. " Our former colleague, Finlayson J.A., made the same point in Martin v. Goldfarb (1998), 41 O.R.(3d) 161 (C.A.) when he approved the following passage from the reasons of the trial judge in that case at 173: Regardless of the doctrinal unde......
-
Court Of Appeal Summaries (May 31 ' June 4)
...[1997] 2 S.C.R. 165, Meditrust Healthcare Inc. v. Shoppers Drug Mart (2002), 220 D.L.R. (4th) 611 (Ont. C.A.), Martin v. Goldfarb (1998), 41 O.R. (3d) 161 (C.A.) Valoris for children and adults of Prescott-Russell v KR , 2021 ONCA 366 Keywords: Family Law, Custody and Access, Supervised Vis......
-
Top 5 Civil Appeals From The Court Of Appeal (February 2014)
...was flawed, any award of damages for lost productivity should be nominal at most. Although Martin v. Goldfarb, [1998] O.J. No. 3403, 112 O.A.C. 138, stands for the principle that, where an absence of evidence makes it impossible to assess damages, a plaintiff may be entitled to only nominal......
-
Ontario Court Of Appeal Summaries (February 25 March 1, 2019)
...Entertainment Inc, 2010 ONCA 570, Belton et al v Liberty Insurance Company of Canada (2004), 72 OR (3d) 81 (CA), Martin v Goldfarb (1998), 41 OR (3d) 161 The appellant-clinic ("ACT") and its principal, S, operate methadone treatment clinics, and hired the respondent, M, to care for patients......
-
Damages for Capital Market Liability: The Impact of Mitigation, Valuation, and Market Uncertainty
...14 Hodgkinson v. Simms, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 377; Canson Enterprises Ltd. v. Boughton & Company, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 534; Martin v. Goldfarb (1998), 41 O.R. (3d) 161 (C.A.), application for leave to appeal dismissed, [1998] S.C.C.A. No. 516; Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Leigh Instruments Ltd. (Trustee o......