Court of Appeal for Ontario

Citation: Sullivan, Mahoney LLP v. Gaspich, 2007 ONCA 886

Date: 2007-12-17

Docket: C46281

Before: WEILER, CRONK and BLAIR JJ.A.

Between:

SULLIVAN, MAHONEY LLP Plaintiff Respondent in Appeal

and

LINDA GASPICH Defendant Appellant in Appeal

Counsel: Timothy R. Pedwell, for the appellant Katharine A. Book, for the respondent

Heard and released orally: December 13, 2007

On appeal from the judgment of Justice W.J. Festeryga of the Superior Court of Justice dated October 18, 2006.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] This appeal concerns a client’s liability for the outstanding balance of her former law firm’s accounts for services rendered in matrimonial litigation involving, among other matters, a hotly contested custody dispute. In our view, the appeal must be dismissed.

[2] The fact that the trial judge said that a global approach to the assessment of the reasonableness of a solicitor’s account to his own client was appropriate in determining the worth of the legal services rendered does not mean that the trial judge neglected to give proper weight to the factors that he was required to consider. To the contrary, we are satisfied in this case that the trial judge took account of the factors relevant to the assessment of the solicitors’ accounts, including the nature of the services rendered, the time expended by the solicitors, the ability of the client to pay, the complexity of the action, the importance of the matters to the client, and the conduct of the defendant husband.

[3] Perhaps more importantly, and contrary to the appellant’s submission before this court, the trial judge found that the appellant made no complaint about the quality of the solicitors’ work or the amount of their accounts until many months after the settlement of the action. He also found that: (i) the solicitors delivered regular interim accounts, most of which were paid; (ii) the solicitors voluntarily discounted many of their accounts having regard to the appellant’s financial circumstances; (iii) the solicitors took the appellant’s ability to pay into consideration; and (iv) the appellant acquiesced in the amount of the solicitors’ fees as evidenced by her ongoing partial payment of the accounts for many months after the resolution of the litigation and her failure to object to the quantum of the accounts until she ran into financial difficulties.

[4] These findings, which were open to the trial judge on the evidence, are dispositive of this appeal. The appellant has not demonstrated any palpable or overriding error with respect to them. Accordingly, appellate intervention is precluded.

[5] Finally, we note that, on the findings of the trial judge, this was difficult and hard fought litigation. As sometimes happens, the length of the trial exceeded that originally anticipated by the parties. However, that does not mean that the appellant was freed of the obligation to pay her solicitors for services properly rendered.

[6] For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed. The respondent firm is entitled to its costs of the appeal, fixed in the amount of $6,950.48, inclusive of disbursements and G.S.T.

“K.M. Weiler J.A.”

“E.A. Cronk J.A.”

“R.A. Blair J.A.”