Samuel Eng and Associates v. Ho
The appeal is allowed because the appeal judge failed to apply the proper standard of review for an assessment officer's decision; the assessment officer's factual findings were supported by evidence and his application of solicitor's account principles contained no error in principle, so his order was restored.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2009 ONCA 150
- Parties
- Respondent: Samuel Eng and Associates; Appellant: Pak Hung Ho; Appellant: Sophia Chow
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 17 February 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal (collection) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Assessment Officer
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; order of the assessment officer restored.
- Legal Topics
- Assessment Officer Review, Standard of Review, Solicitor's Account Assessment, Appellate Interference
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Samuel Eng and Associates
Respondent
Pak Hung Ho
Appellant
Sophia Chow
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (collection) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Assessment Officer
Legal Issues
- 1 Appropriate standard of review on appeal from an assessment officer
- 2 Whether the appeal judge erred in substituting her view of relative success for the assessment officer's findings
- 3 Whether the assessment officer's findings of fact and exercise of discretion were unreasonable or errors in principle
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal is allowed because the appeal judge failed to apply the proper standard of review for an assessment officer's decision; the assessment officer's factual findings were supported by evidence and his application of solicitor's account principles contained no error in principle, so his order was restored.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; order of the assessment officer restored.
Orders
- Appeal allowed.
- Order of the assessment officer restored.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Samuel Eng and Associates v. Ho Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2009-02-17 Neutral citation 2009 ONCA 150 Docket numbers C49428 Judges Winkler, Warren Keith; Goudge, Stephen Thomas; Epstein, Gloria Jean Subject Civil Decision Content CITATION: Samuel Eng and Associates v. Ho, 2009 ONCA 150 DATE: 20090217 DOCKET: C49428 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Winkler C.J.O., Goudge and Epstein JJ.A. BETWEEN: Samuel Eng and Associates Respondent (Respondent in appeal) and Pak Hung Ho and Sophia Chow Applicants (Appellants in appeal) Ford W. Wong and Brendon Walker, for the appellants James H. Chow for the respondent Heard and released orally: February 10, 2009 On appeal from the Order of Justice Rose Boyko of the Superior Court of Justice dated August 28, 2008. ENDORSEMENT [1] This appeal must be allowed. The appeal judge failed to address or apply the appropriate standard of review of the assessment officer’s decision. It is settled law that on an appeal from an assessment officer, the court is only concerned with questions of principle not with questions of amount or how the assessment officer exercised his discretion unless the decision is so unreasonable as to amount to an error in principle. [2] The appeal judge took a different view of the relative success achieved. This does not rise to an issue of principle entitling her to interfere with the decision of the assessment officer. His findings of fact, particularly with respect to the issues surrounding the bonus, were supported by the evidence. In light of those findings, he considered the factors normally applicable to the assessment of a solicitor’s account. We see no error in principle in his reasoning or in the result. [3] The appeal is allowed and the order of the assessment officer is restored. [4] Costs of this appeal in favour of the appellants are fixed in the amount of $5,000 inclusive of GST and disbursements. “W. Winkler C.J.O.” “S. Goudge J.A.” “G. Epstein J.A.”