Dan Goudge

The applicants sought court review of legal fees claimed by six lawyers (the Legal Team) who represented the Robinson Huron Treaty Litigation Fund in litigation to enforce the Crown's obligations under the Robinson Huron Treaty of 1850.

The Legal Team claimed $510 million as a 5% contingent success fee on a $10 billion settlement.

The court found the Partial Contingency Fee Agreement was neither fair when signed nor reasonable at the time of hearing.

The court determined the Legal Team acted in conflict of interest when advising clients on their own fees and failed to ensure clients received independent legal advice.

The court assessed the fair and reasonable value of the Legal Team's services at approximately $40 million (double their billable fees of $23 million plus $6.5 million in disbursements already paid), rejecting the $510 million claim as champertous and disproportionate to the settlement amount.

The applicants brought preliminary objections to the admissibility of two pieces of evidence in an application proceeding concerning contingent fee recognition.

The respondent law firm and lawyers sought recognition of contingent fees claimed under a Partial Contingency Agreement dated June 17, 2011.

The court ruled on the admissibility of an expert report from a former Federal Court judge and a third affidavit from one of the respondent lawyers.

The court found that expert evidence on the complexity of the case, risks involved, and results achieved was not necessary, as these matters were within the experience and knowledge of the court and were adequately addressed through extensive evidence and comprehensive legal submissions.

The court also found the expert lacked the requisite qualifications to opine on the specific topics.

The court reserved judgment on the admissibility of the third affidavit pending further consideration of its relevance.

This decision concerns the conviction of Jawad Rathore and Vince Petrozza for Fraud Over $5,000 under section 380 of the Criminal Code related to syndicated mortgage loans raised through their organization, Fortress.

The Court found that Rathore and Petrozza intentionally misled investors by misrepresenting the value of the security backing the loans, using inflated and misleading appraisals to calculate loan-to-value ratios, thereby deceiving investors about the actual security of their investments.

The Crown's theory of non-disclosure of upfront fees was rejected, as fees were paid by the borrower and not the lenders, and no obligation to disclose them to investors was found.

The Court emphasized the high standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and relied on documentary evidence to assess credibility and reliability.

The accused were found guilty based on the misrepresentations of value that created a risk of deprivation to investors.

The appellants, parents of a brain-injured son, appealed a trial judge's decision on the passing of accounts for a trust they administered.

The trial judge found significant mismanagement, including a failure to account for over $165,000, fabrication of receipts, and improper cash administration, ordering them to repay funds, prejudgment interest, and costs.

The appellants challenged the disallowance of expenses, the failure to consider quantum meruit/equitable set-off, the denial of legal fee indemnity, and prejudgment interest calculation.

The respondent cross-appealed, arguing the accounts should not have been passed given the breaches and that no trustee compensation should have been awarded.

The Court of Appeal largely affirmed the trial judge's findings, making only minor adjustments for calculation errors, and dismissed the cross-appeal, emphasizing the high onus on trustees to account and the deference owed to trial judges' factual findings in such complex cases.

The applicant, Original Traders Energy Ltd. (OTE Group), brought a motion for a Mareva injunction against former executives, Glenn Page and Mandy Cox, and their corporate entity, 2658658 Ontario Inc., to freeze a yacht allegedly purchased with OTE funds through fraudulent means.

The court granted the injunction, finding a strong prima facie case of fraud, a serious risk of asset dissipation given the yacht's movement after notice, and that the balance of convenience favored the applicant.

The requirement for an undertaking as to damages was dispensed with due to the applicant's insolvency and the strength of their case.

The order included directing the respondents to facilitate the yacht's return to Florida.