The appellant law firm appealed an order fixing its fees for representing a person under a disability in a personal injury action.
The law firm had entered into a contingency fee agreement with the Public Guardian and Trustee.
The motion judge disregarded the agreement and fixed fees based on time spent.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the motion judge erred by failing to apply the two-part test from Raphael Partners v. Lam to determine whether the contingency fee agreement was fair and reasonable under s. 24 of the Solicitors Act.
The matter was remitted to a motion judge to assess the reasonableness of the agreement.
