Loïc Berdnikoff

The appellants sought an interpretation of their retainer agreement with the respondent law firms, arguing it was a contingency fee agreement capped at one-third of any favourable result.

The respondents contended it was a "pay-as-you-go" agreement based on hourly rates, with a potential premium.

The application judge found it was a "pay-as-you-go" agreement with a reduced hourly rate and a premium, where only the premium was capped, not the hourly fees.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld this decision, finding no error in the application judge's interpretation.

The Court affirmed that the application judge correctly applied principles of contract interpretation, including considering surrounding circumstances while ensuring they did not overwhelm the clear wording of the agreement.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

In a constitutional appeal on judicial independence, the appellants challenged transitional remuneration and pension provisions enacted during a provincial judicial reform.

The Court held that when a new judicial office is created, remuneration for all judges appointed to that office must be reviewed by an independent committee within a reasonable time, including retroactive review where required.

The impugned provisions delaying or structuring remuneration without timely committee review breached the institutional financial security guarantee and were not justified under s. 1.

The Court upheld the validity of the pension participation provision and the later executive order, and ordered a remedial committee review for the 2004 to 2007 period.

In a constitutional challenge to federal tax requirement powers, legal professional secrecy was weighed against the state’s audit and collection objectives.

The court held that compelling production from legal advisers without adequate notice to clients, without judicially supervised safeguards, and with an overbroad accounting-records exception produced unreasonable seizures under s. 8.

The impugned provisions failed minimal impairment and were not justified under s. 1.

The provisions were read down to exclude notaries and lawyers acting as legal advisers, and the accounting-records exception was declared invalid.