The Lawyers

http://canlii.ca/t/gn24c

[2]               This matter has endured a long and convoluted history in the 22 years since the accident occurred in 1993. It culminates in this five-week trial in which the plaintiff claims compensation for accident benefits which she argues she would have received but for the negligence of the defendant, Ian D. Kirby (Kirby). She claims damages against Kirby and his law firm Gilbert, Wright & Kirby, Barristers and Solicitors (the law firm), for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, claiming millions of dollars in damages, including interest.

[643]      There is no question of the severity of the plaintiff’s injuries resulting from the 1993 accident. The sad reality is that, as a result, Julie’s condition has produced some serious permanent and lasting sequelae which may be subject to further deterioration in the future. It is evident that the actions of Julie, her parents, her sister and her husband Paul have been supportive, well-meaning and diligent in many respects throughout Julie’s journey towards recovery.

[644]      The issue before this Court, however, is a narrow one: Was the defendant, Ian Kirby, negligent in the handling of the plaintiff’s case? The evidence has led this Court to conclude that he was not. 

[645]      Thus, for the reasons stated above, the action of the plaintiff as against Ian D. Kirby and his law firm, Gilbert, Wright, & Kirby, Barristers and Solicitors, is dismissed