Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The court partially allowed a lawyer’s bill review, reducing fees for some time entries, approving an expert disbursement, and allowing contractual interest.
Although the contingency agreement permitted recovery on an hourly basis upon termination, the court must review for reasonableness; given the circumstances and amount achieved ($62,000), the appropriate measure was to apply a contingency percentage (30%) and further reduce to $15,000 to reflect earlier work and settlement timing; disbursements were allowed except disbursement interest of $380.56; overall interest was declined; McKeough was not a proper respondent.
Source excerpt
Appeal dismissed: the contingency fee agreement capped the appellant’s entitlement, leaving him no personal interest in seeking an hourly bill from the former firm.
Because the underlying court ordered full indemnity based on the respondent's reprehensible abuse of process, the taxation must aim to indemnify the applicant and only disallow charges that are demonstrably unreasonable or unrelated to the Nova Scotia litigation; here the adjudicator accepted most charges as proportionate to the stakes and reduced the amended claim of $450,284.52 by $2,000 for excessive copying, resulting in a taxed amount of $448,284.52 (inclusive of HST), with certificate of taxation deferred pending costs of the taxation proceeding.
Source excerpt
The court found special circumstances justified extending time to tax a solicitor’s bill, based on the bill size, a disputed fee quote, notice of taxation, and trust-account concerns.
Bill review under the Legal Profession Act. The Master held the client was 389629 BC Ltd., reduced the lawyer’s bill, and made no order as to costs.
Registrar Bouck held that the settlement agreement was not reviewable under s. 68, reviewed all law firm bills under s. 71, and allowed them except for a $60 error.
The court held the fees charged by Parish and Giles for services related to the July 10, 2003 application were fully disclosed, fair and reasonable given the complexity of the application, the litigation history, the detailed bills, and the 36% discount applied; accordingly the court approved fees of $23,140.08, disbursements of $995.84 and H.S.T. of $3,471.01.
Source excerpt
The court held that Rule 57(37)(d) did not allow the plaintiff to add a damages claim against her solicitor to Sun Life’s costs application.
Appeal allowed in part: respondent is bound by the previously rendered and taxed account of $27,346.80 absent exceptional circumstances; respondent failed to give adequate professional notice of out-of-province discoveries and must bear a $7,500.00 reduction for that failing, yielding a final taxed amount of $19,846.80; respondent must bear the taxing master's fee for the re-taxation and the appellant is awarded modest costs and disbursements.
Source excerpt
Explore more
