The appellants appealed the assessment of a court-appointed receiver's fees and disbursements, including those of its solicitors.
They argued the motion judge exhibited bias, erred in precluding cross-examination of the receiver, and erred in finding the fees fair and reasonable.
The Court of Appeal found no reasonable apprehension of bias.
While the court noted that a receiver's accounts should ideally be verified by affidavit to allow for cross-examination, it held that the questioning permitted by the motion judge was an adequate substitute in this case.
The court upheld the receiver's fees but allowed the appeal in part, remitting the solicitors' accounts for reassessment because the motion judge failed to give them separate consideration.
