Mahdi Mohamed Hussein

The respondent client sought an order declaring that her contingency fee agreement with the applicant law firm was improperly terminated and that she was not liable for fees or disbursements.

The court found that the law firm had good cause to terminate the retainer due to a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship.

Interpreting the Solicitors Act and its regulations, the court held that the law firm could proceed with the assessment of its disbursements immediately.

However, the assessment of legal fees was stayed as premature, because under the regulations, a solicitor cannot recover more in fees than the client recovers in damages, and the underlying tort action had not yet been resolved.

Plus Development Group Corp. brought a motion to oppose the confirmation of a Master's Report, which had awarded Roni Excavating Ltd. $523,241.99 plus costs for excavation work, including extras for the removal of contaminated soil.

Plus Development argued that the Master erred in evidentiary rulings, findings of fact regarding Roni Excavating's knowledge of soil conditions, and the authorization of extras.

The court dismissed Plus Development's motion, confirming the Master's Report, finding no palpable or overriding error in the Master's evidentiary rulings or findings of fact.

The court affirmed that Roni Excavating was entitled to charge for the removal of contaminated material as an extra, as contemplated by the contract and authorized by Plus Development's agent.

The defendant was charged with three Highway Traffic Act offences: driving under a licence of another jurisdiction while suspended in Ontario (s. 36), driving while under suspended licence (s. 53(1)), and improper number plate light (s. 62(19)).

The prosecution established that the defendant's Ontario driver's licence had been suspended since March 17, 1994 for unpaid fines, and that he was operating a vehicle with an Alberta licence plate and defective rear licence plate light on August 10, 2010.

The defendant claimed no knowledge of the suspension and maintained he had obtained an Alberta licence in good faith.

The court found the defendant's testimony not credible and contradicted by prosecution evidence, including testimony from an officer who personally served the suspension notice in 1994.

The defendant was found guilty of all three offences.