Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 20231006 Docket: C70226 Judges: Doherty, Brown and George JJ.A.

Parties

BETWEEN Peter Verbeek, carrying on business as Verbeek & Verbeek Plaintiff (Respondent)

and

Jaswant Singh Kooner Defendant (Appellant)

Counsel: Gurpreet Singh Chandok, for the appellant Melvin I. Rotman and Yovin Jaimangal, for the respondent

Heard and released orally: October 5, 2023

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Nancy L. Dennison of the Superior Court of Justice, dated November 29, 2021, with reasons reported at 2021 ONSC 7863, and from the costs order, dated February 7, 2022.

Reasons for Decision

1The appellant, Jaswant Singh Kooner, hired the respondent lawyer, Peter Verbeek, to provide mortgage enforcement legal services. The parties did not execute any written retainer agreements. Although the appellant paid some interim accounts, he refused to pay others rendered by the lawyer, contending the parties had agreed to a contingent fee agreement. The lawyer sued to recover payment of outstanding fees of $68,893.92. The issues at trial were: (i) whether an oral retainer agreement existed; (ii) if it did, its terms; and (iii) the reasonableness of the accounts rendered by the lawyer.

2The trial judge allowed the lawyer’s action. She held that the parties had concluded an oral retainer agreement under which the appellant would pay the lawyer on a fees and disbursements basis. The trial judge further concluded that the reasonable amount of outstanding fees was $59,342.42, for which she gave judgment, together with costs in the amount of $22,500.

3The appellant appeals, arguing the trial judge erred in her findings regarding an oral retainer agreement. We see no basis for appellate intervention. The trial judge gave detailed reasons explaining her findings, including credibility findings. We are not persuaded they are tainted by palpable and overriding error. As well, her reasons demonstrate that she critically reviewed the evidence about the reasonableness of the fees and disbursements claimed by the lawyer, reducing the amounts claimed. The appeal is dismissed.

4In respect of the appellant’s request for leave to appeal the cost award, the trial judge’s award of costs did not contain any error in principle and was reasonable. Leave to appeal is dismissed.

5The respondent is entitled to his costs of the appeal from the appellant fixed in the amount of $12,500, inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.