• FAIR – supporting auto accident victims through advocacy and education
  • FAIR – supporting auto accident victims through advocacy and education
  • FAIR – supporting auto accident victims through advocacy and education

The Lawyers

Chrisjohn v. Riley, 2015 ONCA 713 (CanLII)

http://canlii.ca/t/glrpz

[9]         In July 2009, the appellants terminated their relationship with R.N. and they so advised Langdon. In October 2009, the appellants retained A.M. as their new lawyer. Instead of moving immediately to set aside the administrative dismissal, A.M. focussed on R.N., alleging that he had been negligent in his handling of the personal injury action and demanding that R.N. report himself to his professional liability insurer, LawPro.

[25]      It is an understatement to say that the appellants were not well served by their former legal counsel in this case. Their first lawyer, R.N., took on Ms. Chrisjohn’s personal injury claim and did little to advance it. When the personal injury action was dismissed, he did not move promptly to set aside the dismissal. While there is evidence that R.N. suffered from personal problems as early as 2007, as the motion judge observed on the evidence before him, “what influence these problems had on R.N.’s conduct and decisions from 2002 to 2007 is unclear”.  And as Langdon points out, during this time, R.N. managed to settle Ms. Chrisjohn’s long-term disability claim.

[26]      After Ms. Chrisjohn changed counsel, A.M. commenced and pursued the solicitor’s negligence action on her behalf against R.N., and did not take any steps in the personal injury action. Indeed, he did not deliver a notice of change of lawyer in that action until 2013, shortly before his retainer ended. He informed Langdon that the personal injury action was not being pursued. This was, as the motion judge concluded, a “deliberate” and “strategic” decision, and not inadvertent, even if, in retrospect, A.M. should have moved to set aside the administrative dismissal at the same time he pursued the solicitor’s negligence action.

[27]      Ms. Chrisjohn’s intention throughout was to recover damages for the personal injuries she suffered as a result of the 2002 collision. Unfortunately, however, the personal injury action had been dismissed in 2007, and from at least 2010, the respondent considered the dismissal to be final and that the action against it had ended.

Comments are closed.