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

Estey v. Attorney General (Nova Scotia)

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The court approved the Settlement because, on balance, it fell within the zone of reasonableness: it is a substantial monetary recovery ($32–$34 million), negotiated at arm's length by experienced counsel with a strong factual basis and disclosure, it mitigates trial risks (including s.15/s.1 justificatory defences and lengthy individualized assessments), provides a low-barrier, accessible and confidential claims process tailored to vulnerable claimants, produced no objections after broad notice, and includes appropriate arrangements for fees, honorarium, claims administration and the approve…

Source excerpt

• S.15(1) charter discrimination
• Settlement approval
• Claims administration
• Contingency fees
• Litigation funding
• Social assistance eligibility

Read case analysis

Kirk v. Executive Flight Centre Fuel Services Ltd.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court approved a class settlement but reduced proposed class counsel fees from 40% to 33%, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify the higher fee.

• Contingency fees
• Fee approval
• Settlement approval
• Evacuation orders
• Environmental contamination
• Class-actions

Read case analysis

Poulus v. WestJet Airlines Ltd.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court approved a $12.5 million class action settlement with WestJet, along with class counsel fees of $4,166,667, disbursements, and a $1,500 honorarium.

• Settlement approval
• Certification
• Contingency fees
• Representative plaintiff honorarium
• Cy-pres distribution
• Opt-outs

Read case analysis

Bogue v. Miracle

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Security for costs was ordered in part under r.61.06(1)(c) because, on the record, Miracle was uncooperative about off-reserve assets, appeared to have insufficient unencumbered assets to satisfy costs, and the circumstances made it just to require security; accordingly $85,026.90 (outstanding costs awarded to Bogue) plus $30,000 for appeal costs (total $115,026.90) must be paid into court within 30 days. Security to SLF ($19,482.33) was declined and an order for $1,500,000 security for judgment was refused as an extraordinary remedy and potentially conflicting with Indian Act issues which sh…

Source excerpt

• Security for costs
• Security for judgment
• Contingency fees
• Indian act s.89 and commercial mainstream exception
• Summary judgment
• Vexatious litigant

Read case analysis

McLeod v. Huang

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Review of a lawyer’s bill under the Legal Profession Act. The court reduced fees, disallowed part of the claimed interest and some disbursements, and fixed the balance due.

• Fee assessment
• Retainer agreement
• Contractual interest
• Mortgage security
• Independent legal advice
• Contingency fees

Read case analysis

Douez v. Facebook, Inc.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court approved a $51 million class-action settlement, class counsel fees, disbursements, and a $10,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff.

• Settlement approval
• Certification
• Contingency fees
• Jurisdictional challenge
• Remedies
• Class-actions

Read case analysis

Morel v. Koninklijke Philips N.V.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Carriage motion in competing Philips class actions. The court granted carriage to the Morel action, stayed Nathanson, and barred similar BC actions pending certification.

• Carriage motion
• Certification
• Representative plaintiff adequacy
• Consortium/co-counsel agreements
• Contingency fees
• Inter-jurisdictional coordination

Read case analysis

Bimman v. Igor Ellyn Professional Corporation (Ellyn Law)

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The motion judge did not err in finding the retainer agreement valid and enforceable under s.24; lawyers challenging retainers bear the onus and, where the lawyer drafted the clear agreement and could have protected against foreseeable risks, the agreement will be enforced absent exceptional circumstances; however the Chitiz Pathak LLP disbursement was properly recoverable as a disbursement under the retainer and not subject to the 30% fee cap.

Source excerpt

• Retainer agreement
• S.24 solicitors act
• Fair and reasonable
• Contingency fees
• Disbursements
• Assessment of accounts

Read case analysis

Chartrand v. Google LLC

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court approved a national class action settlement with Google, upheld cy pres distribution to law foundations, and approved counsel fees and adjusted honoraria.

• Settlement approval
• Cy pres distribution
• Certification
• Contingency fees
• Honoraria
• Data collection

Read case analysis