Court of Appeal for Ontario
Date: 2017-06-29 Docket: C63090
Justices: Watt, Benotto and Roberts JJ.A.
Between
Steven R. Yormak Appellant/Plaintiff
and
Karl Arvai and Karl Arvai Professional Corporation Respondents/Defendants
Counsel
Stephen R. Yormak, appearing in person
Louis J. Crowley, for the respondents
Heard and released orally: June 26, 2017
On appeal from: the order of Justice J. Paul Howard of the Superior Court of Justice, dated November 14, 2016.
Reasons for Decision
[1]
Background
The appellant seeks payment of a 15 percent referral fee in relation to a judgment that the respondent obtained for a client in a personal injury file that the appellant had referred to the respondent.
2The appellant submits that the motion judge erred in granting summary judgment to the respondent and in dismissing the appellant's action. He argues that the respondent breached his contractual obligations of good faith in failing to obtain the client's consent to payment of the referral fee at the time of the respondent's retainer.
3We disagree.
[4]
Analysis
We find no error in the motion judge's decision. As the motion judge found, the appellant and the respondent are practising lawyers in good standing who are subject to the Rules of Professional Conduct of the Law Society of Upper Canada. As such, their referral fee arrangement had to comply with what was then r. 2.08(7) of the Rules. Rule 2.08(7) provided that a referral fee may only be paid by one lawyer to another if:
(a) The fee is reasonable and does not increase the total amount of the fee charged to the client; and
(b) The client is informed and consents.
5The motion judge found, correctly in our view, that the appellant's requested referral fee did not comply with any of the requirements of r. 2.08(7). In particular, when informed of the proposed referral fee, the client did not consent to the amount claimed by the appellant, finding it to be unreasonable. The client would only consent to the payment of a lesser amount, which was paid to the appellant by the respondent, and which the motion judge found was reasonable in the circumstances of this case.
6The appellant submits that the issue of "reasonableness" of the amount of his claim and the amount paid requires a trial. We agree with the motion judge that "there is no genuine issue requiring a trial" with respect to the quantum of the referral fee.
[7]
Disposition
Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
[8]
Costs
Costs to the respondent are payable by the appellant in the amount of $9,000, inclusive of all disbursements and applicable taxes.
"David Watt J.A."
"M.L. Benotto J.A."
"L.B. Roberts J.A."