Cook Roberts v. Ruffolo

2007 BCSC 477 Cook Roberts v. Ruffolo

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Cook Roberts v. Ruffolo, 2007 BCSC 477 Date: 20070405 Docket: 07/0361 Registry: Victoria Between: Cook Roberts LLP Law Firm And: Ruby-Ann Louise Juba Ruffolo Client Before: District Registrar Bouck Reasons for Decision on Adjournment Counsel for the Law Firm P. Freeman, Q.C. Client appearing on her own behalf Date and Place of Pre-Hearing: April 4, 2007 Victoria, B.C. [1] The Law Firm has scheduled a review under s. 70 of the Legal Profession Act, S.B.C. 1998, c. 9 for May 15, 2007. The subject of the review is the Law Firm's bill dated December 21, 2006 (the "Bill"). The Bill in the amount of $75,001.43 remains unpaid. [2] The date for the review was set without consultation with the Client. One of the purposes of this pre-hearing was to determine the Client's application for an adjournment of the review hearing. [3] The Law Firm's services relate to a constructive trust claim brought on behalf of the Client. That claim concerns various rental properties held by Ms. Ruffolo and her now deceased husband. Ms. Ruffolo stands charged with the murder of her late husband. Her trial with respect to that criminal charge is expected to continue in September 2007. She is currently unrepresented by counsel in that matter. In addition, Ms. Ruffolo has been involved in various other legal proceedings, including those related to the custody

of her infant daughter. [4] This is one of those rare instances, at least in my experience, where a review is sought despite an ongoing solicitor-client relationship. Indeed, the parties met only a few days ago to discuss the constructive trust claim. While Ms. Ruffolo is now conducting some parts of that claim herself, she continues to seek and receive advice from the Law Firm. Mr. Freeman remains solicitor of record in that proceeding. [5] Ms. Ruffolo has apparently been directed by Edwards J. to pursue a "Centis" (sic) motion which may lead to funds being released sufficient to retain counsel for the criminal trial. Her time and energy is focused on that application. In addition, there are ongoing issues with respect to Mr. Ruffolo's estate and the couple's daughter. [6] Ms. Ruffolo seeks an adjournment of this review on various grounds. First, she says that her focus must be on the Centis application and matters relating to her daughter. Thus, she has not had the opportunity to fully review the Law Firm's file to consider what objections or concerns she may have with the Bill. A partial review has been undertaken. Second, Ms. Ruffolo has made plans to travel to Terrace on May 11, 2007. She has the permission of her bail supervisor for this trip and made some arrangements to travel with a friend. She intends to stay in Terrace for about one month to "re-connect with friends

and family". The Law Firm was advised of the travel plans by Ms. Ruffolo as soon as she received the Appointment. [7] Ms. Ruffolo has also advised the Law Firm that she is available in late June or July 2007 to attend this review. She intends to call two lay witnesses in addition to giving her own evidence. [8] The Law Firm submits that the review must proceed on May 15, 2007 otherwise there will remain some uncertainty in the ongoing solicitor-client relationship. The Law Firm did not say that it intends to withdraw as counsel in the event the review is adjourned. Nor did the Law Firm suggest that it will be financially prejudiced should the review be postponed. If the review is adjourned, Mr. Freeman is likely unavailable until late July 2007. Without knowing the nature of the Client's concerns with the Bill, the Law Firm is unable to say how many witnesses it intends to call. Mr. Freeman also observes that the Client has had 10 weeks in which to review the Law Firm's file. Furthermore, Ms. Ruffolo has a tendency to "put things off". [9] This review has been adjourned on one occasion, but that was at the Law Firm's request. [10] Upon considering the possible prejudices to each party, I am persuaded that the review should be adjourned, but peremptory on Ms. Ruffolo. [11] I also direct that the review be scheduled for two days. I do not believe that one day will be sufficient,

given the size of the Bill, the number of potential witnesses and the nature of the submissions made at the pre-hearing. [12] The Law Firm should immediately canvass dates with Ms. Ruffolo. If Ms. Ruffolo is unwilling to commit to dates proposed for late June, July or August 2007, the Law Firm may set down the hearing unilaterally. I further direct Ms .Ruffolo to provide the Law Firm with a written summary of her objections and concerns with respect to the Bill, 14 days in advance of the hearing date. The parties are directed to exchange witness lists 7 days in advance of the hearing. Either party is at liberty to set down a further pre-hearing, but I am not seized of this proceeding. [13] Subsequent to preparing these reasons, I received a letter from Ms. Ruffolo asking that I recuse myself from this proceeding. It is not clear whether that letter was copied to Mr. Freeman who may wish to make submissions on the issue. I will be issuing a memorandum to the parties with respect to Ms. Ruffolo's request. "District Registrar C.P. Bouck"