• CASES

    Search by

DLF Law Practice Incorporated v. McDonald et al.

Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

  • Defendants’ motion succeeded in striking pleadings lacking particulars in conspiracy and defamation claims.

  • Several allegations were struck as scandalous, irrelevant, or abusive under Civil Procedure Rules 88.01 and 88.02.

  • Plaintiffs were granted leave to amend pleadings to include necessary particulars, especially for conspiracy and defamation.

  • The Court refused to stay proceedings pending a related appeal and declined to recuse the case management judge.

  • Costs of $6,500 were awarded to the Moving Defendants as a lump sum, balancing success and motion complexity.

  • Claims were drawn from three consolidated actions, encompassing fiduciary breach, conspiracy, defamation, and abuse of process.

 


 

Background of the proceedings

DLF Law Practice Incorporated (DLF), through its officer Donn Fraser, initiated legal proceedings following the dissolution of the law firm Mac, Mac & Mac (“MMM”), in which Fraser was a partner. Several former MMM partners joined Patterson Law, prompting Fraser and DLF to allege that the dissolution was unlawfully orchestrated. The central claims included conspiracy, accessory liability in fiduciary breaches, and defamation.

The primary proceeding (Pic No. 525281) incorporated claims and pleadings from two other actions (PtH No. 510894 and Pic No. 524099), all of which were consolidated into the 525281 action by a court order dated July 10, 2024.

An additional separate action (Pic No. 521514) involved a defamation claim solely against Julie MacPhee, relating to internal MMM communications.

Motion to strike pleadings

In DLF Law Practice Inc. v. McDonald et al., 2025 NSSC 71, the defendants moved to strike certain pleadings. Justice Norton ruled:

  • Allegations of conspiracy failed to meet required particulars and were struck. Plaintiffs were given leave to re-plead with specific material facts, including identities of conspirators, agreements, overt acts, and specific damages.

  • Defamation claims did not include the actual defamatory words or sufficient detail regarding publication, context, or damage. Plaintiffs were also given leave to amend these allegations.

  • Several pleadings were deemed scandalous, irrelevant, or not compliant with the rules of court and were struck accordingly. These included allegations against non-parties and those containing inflammatory or speculative statements.

Motion for stay and recusal

In DLF Law Practice Inc. v. McDonald et al., 2024 NSSC 315, Fraser and DLF moved to stay proceedings or have Justice Norton recuse himself, citing a reasonable apprehension of bias due to his rulings in a separate matter involving Bruce MacIntosh. The Court held:

  • The MacIntosh action and the present proceedings were distinct, with no basis for joinder or overlap requiring a stay.

  • The legal standard for judicial bias, as reaffirmed by appellate decisions, was not met. Justice Norton found no basis for a reasonable apprehension of bias and dismissed the motion.

Costs on motion to strike

In DLF Law Practice Inc. v. McDonald et al., 2025 NSSC 113, the Court addressed costs from the motion to strike. Key points included:

  • The Moving Defendants requested $11,500 in costs, citing 55.5 hours of legal work at a discounted rate of $415/hour.

  • The plaintiffs argued for costs of $1,000–$2,000, contending the motion was largely unsuccessful and could have been resolved more cooperatively.

  • Justice Norton found the motion justified and partly successful. Considering the complexity of consolidated pleadings and the nature of the issues, the Court awarded a lump sum of $6,500, payable forthwith and in any event of the cause.

Conclusion

These proceedings involve complex claims rooted in a professional dispute over the dissolution of a law firm. While several allegations were struck for procedural deficiencies, the Court provided the plaintiffs with opportunities to correct and refile those claims. Judicial impartiality was upheld despite challenges, and costs were apportioned to reflect the nature and success of the motions involved.

DLF Law Practice Incorporated, a body corporate
Law Firm / Organization
Self Represented
Donn Fraser
Law Firm / Organization
Self Represented
Mary Jane McDonald
Law Firm / Organization
Self Represented
Eric Atkinson
Law Firm / Organization
McInnes Cooper
Lawyer(s)

Gavin Giles

SPI Et Pomquet Inc., a body corporate
Law Firm / Organization
McInnes Cooper
Lawyer(s)

Gavin Giles

Jennifer Hamilton Upham
Law Firm / Organization
McInnes Cooper
Lawyer(s)

Gavin Giles

Kate Harris
Law Firm / Organization
McInnes Cooper
Lawyer(s)

Gavin Giles

Joel Sellers
Law Firm / Organization
McInnes Cooper
Lawyer(s)

Gavin Giles

Julie MacPhee
Law Firm / Organization
McInnes Cooper
Lawyer(s)

Gavin Giles

Mary Jane Saunders
Law Firm / Organization
McInnes Cooper
Lawyer(s)

Gavin Giles

Dennis James
Law Firm / Organization
Self Represented
Gerald Green
Law Firm / Organization
McInnes Cooper
Lawyer(s)

Gavin Giles

3241964 Nova Scotia Limited (previously known as Carm Legal Services Inc.), a body corporate
Law Firm / Organization
McInnes Cooper
Lawyer(s)

Gavin Giles

The legal partnership known as Patterson Law
Law Firm / Organization
Patterson Law
Lawyer(s)

Michael P. Scott

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
PIC No. 525281
Civil litigation
$ 6,500
Defendant