http://canlii.ca/t/gp0ht

[3]               The MVA resulted in catastrophic injuries to the plaintiffs, particularly to Anne Meehan.  The evidence in this proceeding supports their position that their former solicitor,  Donald Good may have been negligent in his handling of the actions related to one or more of their claims stemming from the MVA.  Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, they did not pursue their claims in negligence prior to the expiration of the two year limitation period.  They now seek to recover as against Cardill for failing to advise them of their rights in negligence and the running of the limitation period.

http://canlii.ca/t/gnndf

[27]      The failure of Plaintiffs’ counsel to proceed with this matter in a timely way is of great concern to the Court.  If the test for granting the relief that the Plaintiff is seeking in this case was whether their counsel had moved promptly to take the appropriate and necessary steps, I would have no hesitation in dismissing these motions.  Although these concerns are not relevant to my disposition of this motion, I have detailed them because it was clear to me that the lawyers involved did not believe that there was any issue with the way that they had handled the claim.

[28]      The failures of Plaintiff’s counsel are not, however, the test to be applied.  The tests to be applied relate to the prejudice that would be suffered by the Defendants.  In addition, the Court must ensure that meritorious disputes are resolved on their merits, rather than on preliminary motions or preliminary issues.  (See Mader v. Hunter (2004 CanLII 17834 (ON CA), 2004 Can LII 17834, 183 O.A.C. 294 (C.A.)).  As a result, the fact that it is clear that it is the Plaintiff’s lawyers who have been dilatory in pursuing this claim is actually a factor that assists the Plaintiff, as he should not be held responsible for the conduct of his counsel.  I now turn to the merits of the two motions.

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