Court of Appeal for Ontario

CITATION: Willets v. Law Office of Kenneth Jull, 2008 ONCA 218

DATE: 20080401

DOCKET: C47213

WEILER, MOLDAVER and JURIANSZ JJ.A.

BETWEEN:

CHRISTOPHER WILLETS

Plaintiff/Client (Appellant)

and

LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH JULL, STEINBERG MORTON FRYMER LLP, and HOUSER, HENRY & SYRON LLP

Defendants/ Solicitor(s) of the Superior Court of Justice (Respondents)

Counsel:

Stuart Forbes, Q.C. for the appellant

Murdoch R. Martyn for the respondent, Houser, Henry & Syron LLP

Heard and released orally: March 20, 2008

On appeal from the order of Justice Romain W. Pitt of the Superior Court of Justice dated May 17, 2007.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] Christopher Willets appeals the order of Pitt J., quashing the registrar’s order for an assessment of any and all accounts submitted by the respondent Houser, Henry & Syron LLP, with the exception of one account dated December 1, 2005. ( The other respondents did not participate in this appeal)

[2] The appellant, Christopher Willets, retained the services of solicitor Antonin Pribetic in September, 2003. Pribetic was employed with the firm Houser, Henry & Syron LLP. In January, 2005, Pribetic changed firms to Steinberg Morton Frymer LLP, taking the Willets file with him and Houser, Henry & Syron LLP rendered its last account. The matter for which Mr. Willets was engaged was concluded and the last account rendered in December, 2005.

[3] The appellant submits that all the accounts rendered were interim accounts until the account dated December 1, 2005. He asks this court to set aside the motion judge’s order and restore the order of the registrar for an assessment.

[4] The motion judge accepted the respondent’s argument that s. 3 of the Solicitors’ Act should be interpreted as requiring that all bills, whether interim or final, must be assessed within one month of delivery. We disagree. See Price v. Sonsini (2002), 2002 CanLII 41996 (ON CA), 60 O.R. (3d) 257 (Ont. CA). While the respondent attempted to distinguish Sonsini, supra, on the facts, its interpretation of s. 3 as being applicable only to final bills, nevertheless applies.

[5] Houser, Henry & Syron LLP submits that the last account it sent to Mr. Willets was a final account. Houser, Henry & Syron LLP put no evidence before Pitt J. that supports this submission. To the contrary, all the other documentation in the appeal book describes the accounts from Houser, Henry & Syron LLP as interim accounts. Accordingly, the respondent cannot succeed in its submission that the assessment does not come within s. 3 of the Solicitors’ Act.

[6] We would allow the appeal, set aside the order of Pitt J. and restore the order of the registrar. The costs of the motion and of the appeal are to the appellant. We order that they be fixed at $1,750, all inclusive for the motion, and $9,000, all inclusive for the appeal.

“Karen M. Weiler J.A.”

“M. J. Moldaver J.A”

“R. G. Juriansz J.A.”