Liza C. Sheard

The applicants successfully obtained an order for the assessment of their former lawyers’ accounts and subsequently sought $47,000 in costs of the application.

The court held that the claimed partial indemnity costs were excessive and included unreasonable rates and items constituting solicitor overhead.

The court further found that the bulk of the expense resulted from numerous serious allegations of misconduct against the lawyers that were ultimately dismissed and which unnecessarily complicated the proceeding.

In the circumstances, the court declined to award any costs of the application.

The court also clarified that the ordered assessment concerned the original solicitor’s bills rather than a review of a prior assessment and directed that any costs ordered by the assessor against the lawyers be set off against amounts owed by the client.

The applicants sought an order under the Solicitors Act directing the assessment of legal accounts rendered by their former counsel.

The application was brought more than twelve months after the accounts became final and after the accounts had been paid by a court‑appointed receiver pursuant to earlier court orders.

The court held that a prior review by a court‑appointed fee assessor did not bar a statutory assessment under the Act.

Considering the substantial amount of the bills, the relatively short delay beyond the statutory period, and the fact that payment had been made by a receiver rather than the client personally, the court found special circumstances justifying an assessment.

An order was granted directing that the ten monthly bills be assessed in Toronto.

The applicant sought to have a RRIF included as an estate asset despite designated beneficiaries, relying on a deed of arrangement signed by the heirs.

The court found the RRIF was not an estate asset and the deed of arrangement did not alter this, as all parties were mistaken about the estate's net value.

The court ordered the executor to repay $21,592.72 he had personally spent from the estate.

Due to this misappropriation, the court removed him as estate trustee and appointed the applicant in his place.

A law firm was also ordered to repay an inadvertent overpayment of $579.34.