The appellants appealed an interlocutory order requiring them to continue a joint retainer with an accountant and to produce documents to assist the accountant.
The appellants had lost confidence in the accountant and purported to terminate the relationship.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge committed a palpable and overriding error by effectively ordering specific performance of a professional relationship where the client had lost confidence.
As the order for the continued retainer was quashed, the order for document production was also set aside.
