Judge also dismisses suit against lawyers hired for solicitor negligence claim
The Ontario Court of Appeal saw no merit in a woman’s appeal of the decision dismissing her action against the lawyer who had represented her in divorce proceedings and against the lawyers who had pursued her solicitor negligence claim.
In lengthy and contentious divorce proceedings, Ms. Vacaru retained Mr. Legge and his law firm as legal representation and Marmer Penner Inc., a forensic accounting firm, to provide expert evidence.
Ms. Vacaru failed to pay all fees claimed by Marmer, prompting it to file an action to recover the amount owed from her. Marmer also sued Legge on the basis that he had provided a personal undertaking to honour the fees.
In her defence, Ms. Vacaru alleged that Marmer overcharged for some services provided and could only claim a limited amount of fees due to an oral agreement.
In a counterclaim against Marmer, Ms. Vacaru argued that it was negligent. She later abandoned this counterclaim on the eve of trial.
In a crossclaim, Ms. Vacaru asserted solicitor negligence against Legge. She alleged that he failed to take proper steps to prevent her husband from dissipating his assets during the divorce proceedings.
In June 2021, Justice William Chalmers of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted Marmer’s claim against Ms. Vacaru and Legge and awarded Marmer costs. The trial judge dismissed Ms. Vacaru’s crossclaim against Legge.
On appeal, Ms. Vacaru challenged the judgment granting Marmer’s main action and dismissing her crossclaim. She moved to appeal the cost award and adduce fresh evidence on appeal.
On Apr. 12, 2022, in Marmer Penner Inc. v. Vacaru, 2022 ONCA 280, the Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal in the main action and the crossclaim, Ms. Vacaru’s motion to adduce fresh evidence, and her motion for leave to appeal the cost award.
Ms. Vacaru brought a new action against Legge, his law firm, and the lawyers who had represented her on the crossclaim for solicitor negligence. She contended that the lawyers committed perjury, conspired to do so, and introduced falsified documents as evidence.
Ms. Vacaru moved to add LawPro as a defendant. She argued that it knew or should have known what the lawyers were doing.
In a cross-motion, the lawyers sought to strike Ms. Vacaru’s action under rr. 21.01(1)(b), 21.01(3)(d), and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg 194.
Last Jan. 10, Justice Chris de Sa of the Ontario Superior Court struck the statement of claim without leave to amend and dismissed the action for being frivolous, vexatious, and/or abusive of process. The motion judge saw no reasonable cause of action.
Ms. Vacaru appealed the dismissal of her action. Filing a form 2.1A, the respondents sought to dismiss the appeal.
Last Dec. 8, in Vacaru v. Legge, 2025 ONCA 856, the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal under r. 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The appeal court ruled that Ms. Vacaru’s claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action, relied on scandalous allegations, and was trying to relitigate professional negligence issues previously determined.
The appeal court addressed Ms. Vacaru’s allegations against the law firm that represented the lawyer on the crossclaim in connection with her meetings with her lawyer in February and March 2008.
The appeal court explained that adding a new defendant did not, on its own, authorize Ms. Vacaru to relitigate the same issues and evidence. The appeal court noted that Ms. Vacaru had unsuccessfully raised the same allegations before both the lower and appeal courts.
