Law Times

Law Times • OcTOber 3, 2016 Page 5 www.lawtimesnews.com NEWS "The consequences of the De- fendants' wrongful actions and omissions were catastrophic to Mr. Robson professionally and personally, including loss of in - come, loss of an ability to earn an income, mental anguish, and ir- reparable damage to Mr. Robson's professional and personal future," his claim said. The law society's motion to strike said there was not a cause of action to support Robson's alleg - ations of negligence and that his allegations of bad faith and malice were frivolous and vexatious. In their factum, the law soci- ety's lawyers, Sean Dewart and Ian McKellar, also argued the action was an abuse of the court's process as they said it concerned issues that were already litigated at the appeal tribunal. "The appeal division held that there was no basis to conclude that the Law Society's conduct was without reasonable justification, patently unreasonable, malicious, or taken in bad faith or for a collat - eral purpose," the factum said. However, in his decision, Fire- stone said that the issues pleaded in the claim were not entirely argued in the tribunal appeal hearings. "The issues for determina- tion in the amended claim are, in many respects, different than those which were before the hear- ing panel," Firestone said. Fire- stone agreed with the law society on the negligence claim, saying it had no tenable cause of action. "All allegations based on this cause of action are struck without leave to amend," Firestone wrote in the decision. Firestone cited Conway v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2016, a Court of Appeal decision that found that in order to plead a cause of action against the law society for negligence, there would have to be a presence of "bad faith." "As a result, absent bad faith, the Law Society is immune from suit," Firestone wrote. Firestone struck the malicious prosecution claim and the abuse of public of - fice claim, but he granted Robson leave to amend them. Firestone issued Robson 60 days to submit a fresh claim. Radnoff says the action will be hard to win as there will have to be some strong evi - dence that shows the law society ignored evidence that it had no case or that investigators were out to get him. "These actions by their na - ture whether it's against the law society or any other investigative body, it's very difficult to suc- ceed," Radnoff says. "You basically have to demon- strate that someone there is out to get you and it would be difficult to believe that is the case." Richard Watson, the lawyer representing Robson, declined to comment on the decision. LSUC spokeswoman Susan Tonkin said the law society is re - viewing Firestone's decision, as well as its next steps with counsel. "Mr. Robson's allegations have not been substantiated," she said in an email. "The Law Society will be responding as necessary." LT Continued from page 1 Tough to get costs awarded against regulator: lawyer 2014/2015 2015/2016 2016/2017 I N N O V A T I V E • E X P E R I E N T I A L • E N T R E P R E N E U R I A L @ R U L P P | R Y E R S O N . C A / L P P Preparing lawyers to successfully serve Society in the 21st Century. In just 2 years, Ryerson's LPP has created over 440 placements across Ontario. By using Virtual Law Firms (VLFs), we are breaking new ground in the area of skills development and practice management. Within one year of their Call to the Bar, 75% of our alumni are working in law and law-related opportunities. Untitled-2 1 2016-09-27 3:27 PM Windsor lawyer won't get damages, rules judge BY GABRIELLE GIRODAY Law Times A Windsor lawyer who argued she was an em- ployee of her former firm — not a partner — will not get damages after her former law firm dissolved, a judge has ruled. The ruling in Daniel v. Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone LLP, 2016 ONSC by Justice Peter Hockin relates to plaintiff Julie Daniel's mo- tion to receive severance after a partnership dissolved between Windsor-based Miller Canfield Paddock and Stone LLP and a Detroit-based international firm, Miller Canfield Paddock and Stone PLC. After the dissolution, three lawyers set up a reconstituted version of the firm with the De- troit-based international firm, and others relocated to Windsor firm Shibley Righton LLP. How- ever, these arrangements did not include Daniel, who argued that as an employee of the firm she was entitled to damages. "The plaintiff in this case takes the position that at [Miller Canfield Paddock and Stone LLP], she was an employee and that in these circumstances the termination of her employment at [Miller Canfield Paddock and Stone LLP] amounted to constructive dismissal, without notice. She pleads that in these circumstances, she is entitled to damages for wrongful dismiss- al," said the ruling by Hockin. Daniel was called to the bar in 1989 and joined the Windsor firm — known formerly as Wil- son Walker Hochberg Slopen LLP — in 2000 as an associate, before the Detroit-based inter- national firm purchased a con- trolling interest in the Windsor firm in 2002. As of 2006, Daniels had the job title of "salaried interna- tional principal" at the firm, doing work related to corporate finance. The ruling notes she received the financial statements of Mill- er Canfield Paddock and Stone PLC and could go to the firm's annual general meeting of prin- cipals. However, Daniels argued she was not a partner in the firm be- cause of her "non-involvement in the determination of com- pensation within the firm," as well as other reasons. Hockin disagreed — not- ing the terms of "principal" and "partner" are "interchangeable," and "in the context of the prac- tice of law, they mean the same thing." " . . . I do not find that the plaintiff was anything but truthful in her opinion that she was not a partner. It may have been honestly held, but based on all the evidence and the result, it was wrong," he said in the ruling. LT

• Cover