Canada Case Law

Stevens & Company Law Corporation v. Mclean

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

The appeal is dismissed because the motion judge properly exercised his discretion under Rule 334.4 by taking into account the reduced risk borne by counsel given the pre-negotiated settlement and the deficient dockets provided by the appellant, and there is no reviewable error in substituting a 3% fee as fair and reasonable.

Source excerpt

• Contingency fees
• Fee approval under rule 334.4
• Settlement agreements
• Judicial deference on discretionary decisions

Read case analysis

Holness and Small Law Group Professional Law Corporation v. Parmar

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court allocated a contingency fee between two law firms on a quantum meruit basis, awarding the first firm 5% of the accepted $170,000 fee plus taxes.

• Contingency fee
• Quantum meruit
• Fee assessment
• Disbursements
• Costs
• Contingency-fee

Read case analysis

Smeets Law Corporation v. Pacific Substrate Ltd.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Fee review under the Legal Profession Act: the court allowed unpaid bills of $55,915.44 and awarded the law firm $2,000 in costs.

• Fee review
• Retainer
• Billing dispute
• Settlement
• Certificate for unpaid fees
• Fee-review

Read case analysis

Matthews v. Stikeman Elliott LLP

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Fee review under the Legal Profession Act. Most billed fees were allowed, but the court reduced the law firm’s fees by $22,500 plus taxes.

• Fee review
• Section 71 lpa factors
• Security for costs
• Document disclosure
• Examinations for discovery
• Settlement negotiations

Read case analysis

Nejat v. Rahmanian

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Client-initiated review of a lawyer’s bill was adjourned peremptorily on the solicitor, who was ordered to pay $750 in adjournment costs forthwith.

• Taxation of costs
• Adjournment
• Fee dispute
• Custodian of files
• Costs award
• Legal-fees

Read case analysis

Mizrachi v. MacEwen

Court

Nova Scotia Small Claims Court

The adjudicator found the Claimants had retained the lawyer and had no reasonable expectation of a gratuitous in-person meeting; the billing was justified and the time charged was reasonable, therefore the claim for return of $600.88 was dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Retainer agreement
• Consultation fees
• Reasonableness of accounts
• Conflict of interest/dual representation
• Legal aid eligibility advice

Read case analysis

Herman v. Goldman, Sloan, Nash and Haber LLP

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The application judge made credible findings that the appellants received the bills and that their denial lacked an air of reality; there were no special circumstances to excuse the statutory delay and no palpable and overriding error in those findings, so the appeal must be dismissed and the order refusing assessment upheld.

Source excerpt

• Fee assessment
• Special circumstances for assessment
• Credibility findings
• Costs

Read case analysis

LaFramboise v. Kaisersingh

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The motion judge's critical factual findings—that Mr. Pomer was aware of the appellant's action prior to signing the release, that the appellant was aware of the assessment proceeding by July 2014 and did not seek to be added, and that the respondents could rely on the appellant's counsel's representation—were supported by the evidence; therefore there was no material non-disclosure or fraudulent representation and summary judgment dismissing the appellant's action was properly granted.

Source excerpt

• Summary judgment
• Non-disclosure
• Fraudulent representation
• Assessment of accounts
• Release of account

Read case analysis

Skeena Disposal Co. Ltd., v. Griffin Fish Ltd.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Application for payment out of trust funds dismissed because the claimed fees, limitation issues, and accounting questions remained unresolved before trial.

• Payment from trust
• General security agreement
• Priority and registration in personal property registry
• Limitation periods
• Accounting and final distribution
• Costs

Read case analysis

Mowatt v. McCarthy Law Office

Court

Nova Scotia Small Claims Court

The adjudicator found the hourly rate charged was high for counsel called in 2010 and that a reduction was warranted because the lawyer could not complete the retainer due to suspension; applying the reasonableness principle the accounts totaling $2,511.92 were reduced by $600.00 plus HST of $90.00 for a refund of $690.00 and the taxed amount was $1,821.92.

Source excerpt

• Taxation of legal fees
• Retainer agreements
• Reasonableness of fees
• Fee refund

Read case analysis