McLean v. Canada (Attorney General)

McLean v. Canada (Attorney General)

The motions were dismissed as premature because no legal work had been performed and the Court lacked a factual basis to determine whether the proposed contingency fees were fair and reasonable under Rule 334.4 and settlement Clause 13.04; the evidentiary record did not address the factors required for fee approval and raised concerns about class confusion and compliance with professional standards, thus approval must await post-work assessment.

Citation
2019 FC 1525
Parties
Respondent/plaintiff: GARRY LESLIE MCLEAN; Respondent/plaintiff: ROGER AUGUSTINE; Respondent/plaintiff: CLAUDETTE COMMANDA; Respondent/plaintiff: ANGELA ELIZABETH SIMONE SAMPSON; Respondent/plaintiff: MARGARET ANNE SWAN; Respondent/plaintiff: MARIETTE LUCILLE BUCKSHOT; Respondent/defendant: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA as represented by THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA; Moving Party: LISA ABBOTT; Moving Party: NICHOLAS W.K. RACINE; Moving Party: CARL H. SWENSON
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Class Proceeding / Motions to Obtain Court Approval for Non Class Counsel Contingency Fees Under Settlement Clause 13.04 and Rule 334.4
Outcome
Motions dismissed as premature; no costs ordered
Legal Topics
Contingency Fees, Fee Approval Under Federal Courts Rules, Settlement Implementation, Retainer Agreements, Prematurity of Relief
Source Language
English
Class Actions Civil Procedure Professional Regulation Costs and Fees Contingency Fees Fee Approval Under Federal Courts Rules Settlement Implementation Retainer Agreements +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

GARRY LESLIE MCLEAN

Respondent/plaintiff

ROGER AUGUSTINE

Respondent/plaintiff

CLAUDETTE COMMANDA

Respondent/plaintiff

ANGELA ELIZABETH SIMONE SAMPSON

Respondent/plaintiff

MARGARET ANNE SWAN

Respondent/plaintiff

MARIETTE LUCILLE BUCKSHOT

Respondent/plaintiff

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA as represented by THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

Respondent/defendant

LISA ABBOTT

Moving Party

NICHOLAS W.K. RACINE

Moving Party

CARL H. SWENSON

Moving Party

Procedural Posture

Class Proceeding / Motions to Obtain Court Approval for Non Class Counsel Contingency Fees Under Settlement Clause 13.04 and Rule 334.4

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court should pre-approve contingency fees to be charged by non-Class Counsel before services are performed
  2. 2 Whether evidence before the Court is sufficient to assess fairness and reasonableness of the proposed fees
  3. 3 Whether proposed fee arrangement complies with professional standards and settlement clause 13.04 and Rule 334.4

Ratio Decidendi

The motions were dismissed as premature because no legal work had been performed and the Court lacked a factual basis to determine whether the proposed contingency fees were fair and reasonable under Rule 334.4 and settlement Clause 13.04; the evidentiary record did not address the factors required for fee approval and raised concerns about class confusion and compliance with professional standards, thus approval must await post-work assessment.

Court Disposition

Motions dismissed as premature; no costs ordered

Orders

  • Motions dismissed
  • No costs ordered