C. Scott Ritchie

The plaintiffs brought a motion to adjourn an eight‑week civil trial scheduled on the running list while appeals were pending concerning a refusal to amend the statement of claim and to admit late expert valuation reports.

The defendants opposed the adjournment, arguing the appeals would not materially affect the trial and proposing procedural alternatives such as hearing evidence and awaiting appellate outcomes or bifurcating liability and damages.

Applying the principles governing adjournments, including the objective of deciding matters on their substantive merits and considerations of prejudice and fairness, the court found the pending appeals could significantly affect the pleadings and expert evidence at trial.

The court concluded that proceeding before those issues were resolved risked inefficient and potentially unfair proceedings.

The trial was therefore adjourned pending the appellate process.

The solicitor brought a motion seeking to stay an ongoing assessment of legal accounts before an assessment officer, arguing that issues of law raised in the assessment exceeded the officer’s jurisdiction under the Solicitors Act.

The client opposed, asserting the assessment officer had jurisdiction and that the objection was raised too late after the solicitor had already participated in the assessment process.

The court reviewed the limited jurisdiction of assessment officers, noting they determine quantum but cannot resolve genuine disputes about retainers or broader legal issues.

Because the solicitor intended to raise issues including champerty, maintenance, and intentional interference with contractual relations, the court held that these matters required determination by a judge.

The assessment proceeding was therefore stayed on condition that the solicitor commence an action or application within 60 days to determine the adequacy of the account and related issues.