Félix P. Boutin

The appellants appealed a motion judge's order finding that a solicitor-client relationship existed between Paul Kasanda and the respondent law firm (KMH Lawyers and Miriam Vale Peters) for the purposes of an assessment of unpaid legal accounts under the Solicitors Act.

The appellants sought to remove Paul as a party to the assessment, arguing he was not a client and had not agreed to pay for legal services.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that sufficient indicia of a solicitor-client relationship existed based on the totality of the circumstances, including retainer agreements, communications, instructions, advice, and payment arrangements.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion where the respondents (moving parties) unsuccessfully sought to remove Paul Kasanda as a party to an assessment application.

The applicants (lawyers) sought partial indemnity costs for successfully defending that motion.

The court awarded the applicants $10,000 in partial indemnity costs, finding them to be the more successful party, and that the amount was fair and reasonable considering the complexity and importance of the motion, despite some issues with document production.

The moving parties, respondents to an assessment application, sought an order removing Paul Kasanda as a party to the assessment, arguing he did not retain the applicant lawyers.

The lawyers had represented Paul's wife in estate litigation, but the written retainer was signed by Paul's company.

Applying the indicia of a lawyer-client relationship, the court found that a reasonable person would conclude the lawyers were acting for Paul, given his extensive communications, instructions, receipt of legal advice, and agreement to pay fees.

The motion to remove him as a party was dismissed.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an order dated January 11, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in writing and awarded costs of $2,500 on a partial indemnity scale to the respondents.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an order of the motion judge dated January 11, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $2,500 on a partial indemnity scale to the respondents.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion for partial summary judgment regarding the sale of shares in a family farming business, the parties submitted written arguments on costs.

The respondents sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis due to the applicant's premature motion and late disclosure.

The court found the applicant's conduct regarding disclosure to be questionable and awarded the respondents costs fixed at $43,000.00 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes.

The applicant sought partial summary judgment to compel the sale of shares in a family dairy farm corporation from the estate of a deceased brother and other family members.

The applicant alleged an impasse in the company's management due to a breakdown in the relationship with the new shareholders, claiming he was forced to work excessive hours without cooperation or authority.

The respondents disputed these claims, alleging the applicant refused to register them as shareholders, mismanaged finances, and failed to provide necessary documentation.

The court dismissed the motion for partial summary judgment, finding significant factual disputes and credibility issues that required a full trial.

The court emphasized that partial summary judgment is a rare procedure, inappropriate when issues are intertwined and pleadings are not closed.