The appellants retained the respondent paralegal firm for statutory accident benefits claims following a motor vehicle accident.
The respondent orally represented that fees would only be paid from settlement proceeds, but the written retainer agreement contained a clause requiring payment of hourly fees if the representation was terminated.
After terminating the relationship, the respondent sued for fees and won in Small Claims Court.
On appeal, the Divisional Court set aside the judgment, holding that a contract induced by an oral misrepresentation inconsistent with the written terms cannot be enforced, especially in the context of legal retainers where the professional bears the burden of explaining any alterations to the payment structure.
