36454   Eamon Rocks v. Ian Savage Professional Corporation

Charter of Rights – Right to life, liberty and security of person – Right to fair hearing

Mr. Rocks was charged with an impaired driving offence and retained the legal services of the respondent’s principal, Mr. Savage, to represent him. Mr. Savage quoted Mr. Rocks a fee of $4,200 to investigate the circumstances of the case. Mr. Savage later reported that Mr. Rocks’ case had little chance for success and indicated that he would require a retainer of $7,000 if the matter went to trial. Mr. Rocks paid both amounts to Mr. Savage and later decided to represent himself. Mr. Savage returned the $7,000 trial retainer to Mr. Rocks. Mr. Rocks later objected to the fees he paid and had the $4,200 account taxed. The Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta issued a decision certifying the account in the amount of $4,200. The applicant’s appeal of the Review Officer’s decision was dismissed and his application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal was also dismissed.

36419    Perry Breslin, et al. v. Ontario Securities Commission, et al.

Administrative law — Ontario Securities Commission

Following allegations against the Respondent Taylors and other parties, the Commission held a hearing on the merits and another on sanctions and costs. The Commission found that the Taylors and another party had committed several significant breaches of the Act. They were prohibited from trading in securities for various terms, reprimanded and ordered not to participate in various corporate roles. The Commission granted a disgorgement order providing that the amounts disgorged were to be allocated to or for the benefit of unspecified third parties in accordance with s. 3.4(2)(b) of theSecurities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5. The Taylors unsuccessfully appealed both decisions to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, then moved, again unsuccessfully, for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. In each case, the proceedings and decisions were made without notice to the promisees under the promissory notes provided to the Taylors (collectively, the “Lenders”). Some of the Lenders then applied for leave to reopen the motion for leave to appeal, which was denied with reasons. Those Lenders now apply for leave to appeal, arguing that they were affected parties and should have been given notice of the underlying proceedings so that their interests could have been represented.

36292    Gabor Kadar v. Susan Reichman personally and in her capacity as liquidator and trustee of the Estate of the late Edith Kadar

Successions – Wills – Trusts

In 1986, the Applicant’s father, Tibor Kadar, and step-mother, Edith Kadar, who were then living in the Bahamas made so-called mutual wills. In these wills, each bequeathed 75% of his/her estate to the other and 25% to the Applicant. The wills gave the surviving spouse a life interest in the Applicant’s 25% share. Edith made several other wills in later years (1992, 1997 and two in 2005, on for the Bahamas and one for Canada). Tibor died in 2001. In her Canadian will, Edith revoked all previous wills. Edith died in 2011. The Respondent is the liquidator of Edith’s estate and she lives in Montreal. In 2011, the Applicant sued the Respondent for an accounting of her administration of Edith’s estate. The Superior Court of Quebec declared the wills of late Tibor Kadar and late Edith Kadar to be valid wills pursuant to laws of Bahamas. The Court of Appeal granted the appeal.