3 total
Appeal dismissed; lawyer's ambiguous retainer agreement construed against the lawyer as a pro bono arrangement.
The appellants (lawyers) appealed a judgment finding that they had agreed to represent the respondent on a pro bono basis and ordering them to repay funds improperly applied to legal fees.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the application judge made no errors in allowing the matter to proceed by application, in finding that the retainer was pro bono, or in resolving ambiguity in the retainer in favour of the client.
The court also rejected the appellants' argument that the application judge's conduct raised a reasonable apprehension of bias.
Lawyer's failure to obtain written retainer results in finding that services were provided pro bono.
The applicant brought an application under section 23 of the Solicitors Act for a declaration that legal services provided by the respondent lawyer in an underlying veterinary malpractice action were rendered on a pro bono basis.
The respondent argued the oral retainer was a contingency fee arrangement and billed the applicant $34,000 after the action settled.
The court found that the respondent failed to discharge the heavy onus of proving the terms of the oral retainer over the client's understanding.
The court declared the services were provided pro bono and ordered the return of fees previously paid.
Human rights application alleging age and race discrimination in restaurant employment dismissed for lack of evidence.
The applicant, a 58-year-old dishwasher of Sri Lankan origin, alleged that the respondents discriminated against him based on age, race, colour, place of origin, and ethnic origin during his brief employment.
He claimed he was treated differently, subjected to discriminatory comments, and that his employment was terminated and wages withheld for discriminatory reasons.
The Tribunal found that the differential treatment, such as bag checks and being paid in cash, was due to his status as a new employee, not his race or age.
The Tribunal concluded that the workplace conflict arose from differing work styles and the applicant's angry outburst, rather than discrimination, and dismissed the application.
