Mark S. Thompson Law Corp. v. Hester

2002BCSC0911 Citation: Mark S. Thompson Law Corp. v. Hester, et al Date: 20020618 2002 BCSC 911 Docket: L012784 Registry: Vancouver IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA RE: THE LEGAL PROFESSION ACT BETWEEN: MARK S. THOMPSON LAW CORPORATION AND M.C. (MARK) STACEY LAW CORPORATION, DOING BUSINESS AS ALLARD AND COMPANY AND THE SAID ALLARD AND COMPANY solicitors AND: LEN HESTER AND BRIAN MACPHERSON clients REASONS FOR decision OF district registrar sainty Counsel for the Solicitors M.C. Stacey Appearing in Person L. Hester (February 26, 2002 only) Appearing in Person B. MacPherson Date and Place of Hearing/Trial: February 26 and May 7, 2002 Vancouver, BC [1] This was an appointment brought by the solicitors to review three accounts rendered by them to the clients dated January 21, April 27 and May 17, 2001, in the amounts of $2,789.10, $7,725.30 and $1,803.75 respectively. [2] This review is different from most conducted by registrars in that Mr. Hester and Mr. MacPherson raised different issues with respect to the accounts. [3] Mr. Hester's difficulties are not with respect to the accounts attached to the appointment but rather with accounts rendered prior to the accounts in question. At the hearing on February 26, 2002, Mr. Hester requested an adjournment such that he could file an appointment for review of the prior accounts of the solicitors. I refused to grant the adjournment on the grounds as follows: (a) the accounts had been outstanding for some time, (b) it was clear from the appointment which accounts were to be reviewed, (c) the matter had initially been set to be heard on December 7, 2001 and adjourned as Mr. Hester had not been served with the appointment. (A sub-service order was made on January 16, 2002), and (d) Mr. Hester had taken no steps to file his own appointment. [4] On May 3, 2002, Mr. Hester sent an e-mail to the registrar's office seeking an adjournment of the continuation of the hearing before me to October 2002 for medical reasons. At the hearing on May 7, 2002, Mr. MacPherson and Mr. Stacey requested that I proceed with the hearing. I chose to do so as Mr. Hester had been given the opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Stacey at the hearing on February 26, 2002 and as his issues related, as noted above, to accounts rendered prior to the accounts being reviewed, not the accounts attached to the appointment. [5] Mr. MacPherson is not responsible for the January 26, 2001 account, as he was not the solicitors' client at that time. His issue in this matter was that, in his submission, he was never a client of the solicitors and should therefore bear no responsibility for payment of the latter two accounts. [6] I will deal with Mr. MacPherson's claims first. [7] Before performing a review of the reasonableness of the Accounts, I must first decide if Mr. MacPherson has any liability with respect to them, i.e.: Did Mr. MacPherson retain the solicitors to act on his behalf in connection with the matters of the April 27 and May 18, 2001 accounts? [8] It is the solicitors' responsibility to prove their retainer in order to hold a person responsible for payment of their accounts for services rendered. Master Halbert, in Coates v. Bucholz and Arbutus Bay Estates Ltd. (9 September 1991), Victoria No. 903846 (B.C.S.C.) stated, at p. 3: The law with respect to the determination of the retainer is well settled. The onus is always on the solicitor to prove his retainer: MacGill & Grant v. Chin Yow You, (1914) 19 B.C.R. 241 [(C.A.)]; In Re Dickie, De Beck, et al. (1916) 23 B.C.R. 538 [(C.A.)]; Griffiths v. Evans, [1953] 2 All E.R. 1364 [(C.A.)], per Lord Denning at p. 1369. Where there is a dispute as between the solicitor and his client on the terms of a retainer, the word of the client is to be accepted, or at least given more weight, unless there is some evidence to corroborate the word of the solicitor, or which tends to support the solicitor's evidence; Griffiths v. Evans; Bourne Lyall Davenport & Herbert v. Varabioff et al., Penticton Registry number 396B74, unreported, 1974, per Ruttan, J., citing with approval Macdonald v. Bellhouse, [1920] 1 W.W.R. 597 [(Alta. S.C.-T.D.)]. [9] In order to determine if the solicitors acted for Mr. MacPherson, a review of the facts is appropriate. [10] The solicitors acted as general counsel for two corporate entities, Sudden Fine Printing and Sudden Graphics Ltd. (collectively, "Sudden") since in or about 1984. [11] Sudden Graphics was the parent company and Sudden Fine Printing the operating subsidiary. In the fall of 1998, three of the principals of Sudden (Mr. Hester, Mr. MacPherson and Mr. LeBlanc) negotiated a buy-out of the remaining principal, Mr. Danbrook. [12] The solicitors acted for Sudden in connection with the Danbrook buy-out. The buy-out involved installment payments and general security agreements were granted to Danbrook by Sudden. Messrs. Hester, MacPherson and LeBlanc provided guarantees of the installment payments, which guarantees were limited both in terms of amount and duration. Although the general security agreements were delivered to Mr. Danbrook, no financing statements perfecting their security against Sudden were ever filed by or on behalf of Mr. Danbrook. [13] In or about November 1998, Sudden and Pacific Image Graphics ("Pacific") entered into a corporate partnership and a new company, AKA Rhino Prepress & Print Inc. ("AKA Rhino") was incorporated. The assets of Sudden and Pacific were moved into joint premises in Richmond. [14] No partnership agreement was prepared and the relationship between Sudden and Pacific was never documented. AKA Rhino obtained credit from the Toronto-Dominion Bank which was secured over the assets of Sudden, Pacific and AKA Rhino and was supported by limited personal guarantees, including from Messrs. Hester, MacPherson and LeBlanc. The solicitors were not involved in these transactions. [15] Important to note is that, based on documents in the possession of Messrs. Hester and MacPherson, it was not clear if the TD Bank had obtained properly executed security agreements after filing an initial financing statement against Sudden on December 1, 1998. [16] AKA Rhino's operations were not successful. In the late summer or early fall of 2000, both Mr. Hester and Mr. MacPherson were fired by AKA Rhino. Mr. LeBlanc continued to work for AKA Rhino. [17] Even though AKA Rhino dismissed both Mr. Hester and Mr. MacPherson, Sudden's assets continued to be used in AKA Rhino's operations. [18] AKA Rhino's financial situation continued to deteriorate. In December 2000, Hester instructed the solicitors to prepare general security agreements to secure his interests against Sudden. Mr. MacPherson retained his own counsel (Mr. Wong) to assist him in securing his interests in Sudden. [19] Messrs. Hester and MacPherson wanted to attempt to take a secured position in priority to both Mr. Danbrook and the TD Bank. A number of issues complicated the transaction: (a) Mr. LeBlanc continued to be a director of Sudden Fine Printing and he continued to work for AKA Rhino; (b) if the two Sudden companies were insolvent, the taking of general security agreements against the Sudden companies might be construed as a fraudulent preference; (c) the general security agreements were to be granted in respect of shareholders' loans, however it was not clear that either Mr. Hester or Mr. MacPherson had actually made shareholders' loans to Sudden; (d) Messrs. Hester and MacPherson were concerned about Mr. LeBlanc's willingness to authorize the general security agreements which might prejudice the interests of Mr. Danbrook and/or the TD Bank. [20] The solicitors prepared a form of security agreement for Mr. Hester. They forwarded it to Mr. Wong for his review on behalf of Mr. MacPherson. The solicitors also prepared a variety of other documents in respect of the security. [21] The solicitors rendered the January 26, 2001 account to Mr. Hester. A portion of that account was paid and the amount of $1,461.04 remains outstanding. The solicitors rendered the account only to Mr. Hester as the security documentation was prepared on his instructions alone, although MacPherson executed similar agreements following review by Mr. Wong. [22] In February 2001, the TD Bank instituted insolvency proceedings and made written demand of all of the companies and guarantors on February 26, 2001. Initially, Messrs. MacPherson and Hester handled matters directly with the TD Bank, but in early March 2001, the TD Bank delivered to the solicitors copies of the general security agreements granted by Sudden in favour of the TD Bank and confirmed their intention to enforce their security. [23] Mr. Stacey testified that both Mr. MacPherson and Mr. Hester then instructed Mr. Stacey to oppose the TD Bank's efforts to act on its security. Mr. Stacey testified that Mr. MacPherson specifically requested that the solicitors act on his behalf, as he did not wish to have his own counsel. Mr. MacPherson testified that he did not hire the solicitors to act on his behalf. He stated that, when he hired Mr. Wong, they had discussions about billing and billing rates and that he provided a retainer to Mr. Wong. No such discussions took place with Mr. Stacey. He did speak to Mr. Stacey from time to time in respect of corporate matters, including legal accounts, but not in respect of personal matters. Mr. MacPherson also testified that he did, as well, ask Mr. Stacey to "run things by" him before talking with Mr. Wong to assist him in controlling his personal legal costs. [24] The TD Bank sought to sell the assets of AKA Rhino, including Sudden's assets. The solicitors negotiated with the TD Bank. Mr. Stacey testified that he sought instructions from both Mr. Hester and Mr. MacPherson about the on-going negotiations with the TD Bank. Mr. MacPherson testified that he represented Hester in these discussions with Mr. Stacey as Mr. Hester had some personal issues to deal with that made it difficult for him to adequately instruct the solicitors. Additionally, during the negotiations, on at least one occasion, Mr. MacPherson sought advice from Mr. Wong about the issues and the negotiations, specifically in respect of an affidavit to be sworn by Mr. MacPherson related to opposing the TD Bank's bankruptcy petition. Further, Mr. MacPherson testified that he communicated his instructions relating to the TD Bank issues to Mr. Stacey through Mr. Wong. [25] Mr. Stacey testified that ultimately an advantageous settlement was reached with the TD Bank. Fasken Matineau DuMoulin, solicitors for the TD Bank, wrote to the solicitors on April 24, 2001 confirming the agreement, as follows: 1. You will withdraw your opposition to the bankruptcy petition against Printing [Sudden Fine Printing Ltd.] and your clients will consent to the bankruptcy of that company; 2. We will seek an order from the court to withdraw the bankruptcy application against Graphics [Sudden Graphics Ltd.]; 3. Graphics will consent to the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers ("PWC") as receiver of Graphics immediately that the bankruptcy receiving orders are pronounced by the court against the rest of the companies in the Group [A.K.A. Rhino Prepress and Printing Inc., Pacific Image Color Inc., Graphics and Printing], on the basis that this receivership will be vacated later that day and the security against Graphics (but not the debt) released; 4. Our client will: (a) pay to your client, Mr. Hester an amount equal to the difference between $25,000 and the balance outstanding under Mr. Hester's personal loan to our client at the branch at...(loan number..., estimated to be approximately $14,000) and forgive that last mentioned personal loan (but not any other loans which Mr. Hester may have with any other branch of the Bank or any VISA amounts which may be outstanding; (b) provide a covenant not to sue any of Graphics, Mr. Hester or Mr. MacPherson on the guarantees which the Bank holds from each of them in relation to the obligations of AKA Rhino to our client...; and (c) release any claim which our client or PWC as receiver or trustee might have to the truck registered in the name of Graphics and/or Printing under VIN ... (the "Truck"); 5. Your clients (including each of Graphics, Printing, Hester and MacPherson) will execute a release in favour of our client and PWC and the purchaser of any of the assets of the Group with respect to all matters relating to the Group and the assets and the disposition of the Group's assets and will acknowledge in the release that they have and make no claim to any assets of the Group other than the Truck. Without limitation, the release will include the substance of the enclosure to this letter. [26] The solicitors signed the letter as "Counsel for Graphics, Printing, Hester and MacPherson", agreeing to the terms, subject to certain additional conditions not reproduced in these reasons. I should note that, in the end, the $25,000 payment from the TD Bank was agreed to be set-off against Mr. MacPherson's debt to the TD Bank, as well as against Mr. Hester's debt referred to in the letter. Mr. Stacey testified that the settlement arrangement was concluded on the basis that the cash amount received from the TD Bank would be used to pay their outstanding accounts. The TD Bank accordingly made a payment of $6,896.07 to the solicitors who applied it against their outstanding accounts, including a portion against the January 21 account. [27] The April 17, 2001 account was rendered to Messrs. Hester and MacPherson, as well as to Sudden Graphics. At meetings subsequent to the rendering of the April account, neither Mr. Hester nor Mr. MacPherson made any complaint about the account. Mr. Stacey testified that both Mr. Hester and Mr. MacPherson expressed satisfaction with the results of the negotiations. Mr. MacPherson submitted that he did not complain as he did not receive a copy of the invoice until Mr. Hester provided one to him in February 2002. [28] Following the settlement, the solicitors worked to complete the documentation and the transaction with the TD Bank. Mr. Stacey testified that, during this period, he sought and received instructions from both Mr. Hester and Mr. MacPherson. Mr. MacPherson testified that he did speak to Mr. Stacey but only to provide instructions with respect to corporate matters and to relay information to Mr. Stacey from Mr. Hester who was suffering from some health difficulties. [29] Mr. Stacey met with both Mr. Hester and Mr. MacPherson on May 11, 2001 to execute the documents. Once the transactions had been completed, the solicitors rendered the May 17, 2001 account. [30] Mr. Wong testified on behalf of Mr. MacPherson. He confirmed that he acted for Mr. MacPherson from the time he was dismissed by AKA Rhino until the spring of 2001. He further testified that Mr. MacPherson consulted him in February 2001 with respect to the demands made by the TD Bank. Mr. Wong wrote to the TD Bank on Mr. MacPherson's instructions at the end of February 2001 to advise the Bank that Mr. MacPherson would not be responsible for any further advances made by the TD Bank to AKA Rhino. [31] Mr. Wong met with Mr. MacPherson in April 2001 to review and have sworn affidavits prepared by Mr. Stacey in connection with the TD Bank matter. On April 23, 2001, Mr. Stacey telephoned Mr. Wong to discuss strategy for negotiating a settlement with the TD Bank on behalf of both Mr. Hester and Mr. Wong. Finally, Mr. Wong testified that, throughout the matter, he considered that he was Mr. MacPherson's lawyer. [32] On cross-examination, Mr. Wong confirmed that he had no involvement with the solicitors after April 26, 2001 and that he (Wong) was not involved in concluding the settlement with the TD Bank after April 25, 2001. [33] Mr. Stacey testified (and Mr. MacPherson agreed with this part of the testimony) that the solicitors fees were to be paid out of the settlement funds and by the sale proceeds from a Hino truck (worth approximately $11,000) in Mr. Hester's possession. Mr. Stacey further testified that he had no knowledge of what had happened to the truck following the conclusion of the settlement and discharge of the TD Bank security registered against it. [34] As noted above, the burden of proving the retainer is on the solicitors and it is a high burden. Where the evidence is conflicting, I am to give more weight to the client's evidence, unless there is other corroborating evidence establishing the retainer. [35] In this case, there is some corroborating evidence, most particularly in the correspondence filed in this hearing, including the letter of April 24, 2001 from Fasken Martineau to the solicitors, portions of which I have set out above. Other examples are: (a) Letter of April 25, 2001 from the solicitors to Fasken Martineau responding to the April 24, 2001 letter which provides, in part: We have been instructed by Messrs. Hester and MacPherson that Mr. MacPherson's personal loan to the Toronto-Dominion Bank of approximately $4,600.00 is also to be off-set against the $25,000.00 amount referred to in point 4(a). In addition, the writer has deleted the reference to Mr. MacPherson's personal loan referred to in point 4(b). Also, the balance of funds payable of approximately $6,400.00 are to be forwarded to this office payable to Allard and Company, In Trust. (b) Letter dated April 27, 2001 from the solicitors enclosing the April 27, 2001 account, both of which are directed to Mr. Hester and Mr. MacPherson (although Mr. MacPherson denied receipt). (c) Covenant not to sue between The Toronto Dominion Bank, as Covenantor, and Brian MacPherson, as Covenantee signed by the Toronto Dominion Bank and forwarded to the solicitors by Fasken Martineau (solicitors for the Bank) on May 9, 2001. (d) Document signed May 11, 2001 entitled "Notice to Officer of a Bankrupt Corporation" signed by each of Messrs. Hester and MacPherson and witnessed by Mr. Stacey. (e) Release dated effective April 25, 2001 granted and signed by each of Sudden Graphics Ltd., Leonard Hester and Brian MacPherson to Rhino Graphics Inc., The Toronto Dominion Bank and PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc. (in its capacity as the receiver of each of A.K.A. Rhino, Pacific Image, Sudden Printing and Sudden Graphics Ltd., and in its personal capacity) as witnessed by Mr. Stacey. (f) Letter from the solicitors to Fasken Martineau dated May 14, 2001 enclosing the Release, which letter was copied to each of Mr. Hester and Mr. MacPherson. (g) Letter of May 14, 2001 from the solicitors to PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc. enclosing certain documentation and confirming as follows: In connection with the Statement of Affairs, we advise that neither Mr. Hester nor Mr. MacPherson are prepared to endorse the Statement of Affairs. For example, we understand that the shareholders loans of Mr. Hester ($135,000.00) and Mr. MacPherson ($78,000.00) are not properly indicated. Furthermore, I write to confirm that neither Mr. Hester nor Mr. MacPherson plan to attend the Meeting of Creditors for Sudden Fine Printing Ltd. set for May 18, 2001... A copy of this letter was sent to each of Mr. MacPherson and Mr. Hester. (h) Letter of May 23, 2001 from the solicitors to each of Messrs. Hester and MacPherson addressed to their respective home addresses enclosing copies of the various documents related to the TD Bank settlement and the May 17, 2001 account. [36] I must now determine if the corroborating evidence is sufficient to support the solicitors' submission that both Mr. Hester and Mr. MacPherson were their clients and should therefore be responsible for paying their accounts. I must compare this documentary evidence with the testimony of both Mr. MacPherson and Mr. Wong. [37] In my opinion, the solicitors were remiss in not confirming, in writing, their belief that they were to act on behalf of both Mr. Hester and Mr. MacPherson in connection with the TD Bank matter. Had they taken this simple step, the hearing before me would not likely have been required, as the issue would have been dealt with early on in this matter. Lawyers who undertake legal business without written retainers from their clients proceed at their peril. (See MacGill v. Chin Yow You (1914), 19 B.C.R. 241 at p. 242 (C.A.); Roberts v. Kroll, [1971] 5 W.W.R. 133 at p. 141 (B.C. Co. Ct.); and MacLeod & Small v. Mann (unreported, March 24, 1974, Vancouver Registry X5529, at p. 2 (B.C.S.C.).) [38] I listened carefully to all of the evidence at the hearing and reviewed all of the documents filed by both the solicitors and Mr. MacPherson. In my opinion, based on the balance of probabilities and the fact that I must give more weight to the client's testimony than to the solicitors', Mr. MacPherson did not specifically retain the solicitors to act on his personal behalf, even though they clearly did work that was of benefit to him (as it was to Mr. Hester and to Sudden). [39] Although, in my opinion, Mr. MacPherson did not specifically retain Mr. Wong in respect of matters with the TD Bank, he did consult him when he felt it was necessary. Mr. MacPherson believed that Mr. Wong was his counsel in respect of these matters. Mr. MacPherson believed that the solicitors' fees were to be paid from corporate assets and by Mr. Hester. He did not turn his mind to his personal responsibility for the accounts. Nor, in my opinion, did the solicitors make it clear to him that he would be personally responsible for payment of the April and May accounts. [40] In making this decision, I am mindful of the fact that Mr. Stacey testified that he had discussions with Mr. MacPherson about payment of the solicitors' fees. In my opinion, Mr. MacPherson believed those discussions related to Sudden's responsibilities and, in fact, Mr. MacPherson agreed that a portion of the fees should be paid with a corporate assets, the Hino truck released by the TD Bank at the conclusion of the negotiations. Accordingly, in my opinion, only Mr. Hester is responsible for payments of the accounts. [41] As I noted above, Mr. Hester's issues on this review related to work performed by the solicitors before the accounts in question were rendered. He did not raise any specific issues with the accounts under review. In any event, as an appointment was filed to review the accounts, I must now turn to a review of the accounts. [42] A review of a solicitor's account is conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Legal Profession Act, S.B.C. 1998, c. 9. In determining the amount of fees properly chargeable by a solicitor to a client, I must keep in mind the factors set out in s. 71(4) of that Act which provides as follows: 71(4) At a review of a lawyer's bill, the registrar must consider all of the circumstances, including (a) the complexity, difficulty or novelty of the issues involved, (b) the skill, specialized knowledge and responsibility required of the lawyer, (c) the lawyer's character and standing in the profession, (d) the amount involved, (e) the time reasonably spent, (f) if there has been an agreement that sets a fee rate that is based on an amount per unit of time spent by the lawyer, whether the rate was reasonable, (g) the importance of the matter to the client whose bill is being reviewed, and (h) the result obtained. (5) The discretion of the registrar under subsection (4) is not limited by the terms of an agreement between the lawyer and the lawyer's client. [43] As is clear from the facts set out above, this matter was quite complex and required the skills of an experienced solicitor. Mr. Stacey testified that the work performed was extremely demanding and, particularly between April 19 - 25, 2001, he was required to devote considerable time and energy to this matter. In addition to Mr. Stacey, Mr. Thompson performed some of the work on this matter, particularly in respect of the first account. [44] Mr. Stacey was called to the Bar in 1983 and Mr. Thompson in 1980. They maintain a commercial practice: Mr. Thompson mainly in the preparation of security documents and Mr. Stacey in commercial litigation matters. Both solicitors had the requisite skill, knowledge and expertise to assist the client in resolving these matters. [45] No issue was taken with the solicitors' character and standing in the profession. [46] The amount involved was significant. The Toronto Dominion Bank was requesting payment from Mr. Hester on personal guarantees. Sudden Graphics owed the Toronto Dominion Bank (as at February 26, 2001) $1,189,702.97. The evidence before me was that the personal guarantee was limited, but I was not advised of the amount. However, the evidence disclosed that Mr. Hester received considerable value from the solicitors' work, including a payment to him, forgiveness of some debt and an asset worth approximately $11,000.00 (the Hino truck referred to above), as well as releases of his limited personal guarantees and personal property registry filings against him personally. [47] No evidence was presented to me with respect to the solicitors' hourly rates. [48] No time sheets were given to me in evidence and I therefore am unable to determine if the amount of time expended was reasonable. [49] I did, however, carefully review the description of the matters undertaken on behalf of the client on the accounts provided. Clearly a great deal of time and effort went into this matter, particularly in respect of the April 27, 2001 account. That account represents the bulk of the fees incurred in respect of the negotiations with the Toronto Dominion Bank. It includes, as well, a court appearance and negotiations of the settlement with the Toronto Dominion Bank. [50] The result was excellent for the client. That was not disputed. [51] Based on my review of the evidence and application of the factors set out in the Legal Profession Act, it is my opinion that the fees charged to the client for the work done were reasonable in all the circumstances. [52] No issue was taken with respect to the disbursements. I reviewed the disbursements anyway and found them to be reasonable for a matter of this nature. I would uphold the disbursements as presented. [53] Accordingly, the accounts are allowed in the total amount for fees, disbursements and applicable taxes of $12,022.66. The client has made a payment of $591.10 on the accounts (from monies received from the Toronto Dominion Bank). The solicitors are therefore entitled to a certificate in the amount of $11,431.56, plus interest and costs as set out below. [54] Section 73(3) of the Legal Profession Act, supra, provides as follows: (3) If a registrar gives a certificate under subsection (2), the registrar must add to the amount certified an amount of interest calculated (a) on the amount the registrar has allowed the lawyer for fees, charges and disbursements, exclusive of the costs of the review, (b) from the date the lawyer delivered the bill to the date on which the certificate is given, and (c) at the rate agreed to by the parties at the time the lawyer was retained or, if there was no agreement, at the same rate the registrar would allow under the Court Order Interest Act on an order obtained by default. [55] The solicitors are entitled to interest on the amount of the Accounts outstanding at the rate set out in the Court Order Interest Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 79 from the date the Accounts were rendered to the date of the certificate. [56] Section 72 of the Legal Profession Act provides as follows: 72(1) Costs of a review of a lawyer's bill must be paid by the following: (a) the lawyer whose bill is reviewed, if 1/6 or more of the total amount of the bill is subtracted from it; (b) the person charged, if less than 1/6 of the total amount of the bill is subtracted from it; (c) a person who applies for a review of a bill and then withdraws the application for a review. (2) Despite subsection (1), the registrar has the discretion, in special circumstances, to order the payment of costs other than as provided in that subsection. [57] As I have upheld the accounts in their entirety, it follows that the solicitors are entitled to their costs of this hearing. [58] Section 72(2) of the Legal Profession Act provides: (2) On a review under this Part, the registrar may ... (b) summarily determine the amount of the costs of the review and add it to or subtract it from the amount shown on the certificate. [59] In order to assist with the final resolution of this matter and to avoid an additional court appearance to assess costs, I am summarily fixing the solicitors costs of this review at the sum of $1,000.00. [60] The solicitors may prepare a certificate, with an interest calculation attached, and forward it to me for my signature. "District Registrar K. Sainty"