Robert G. Schipper

The appellant sought an assessment of 30 accounts totalling over $600,000 from his former counsel over approximately two and a half years of representation in a family law proceeding.

Of these accounts, 26 were paid in full and four remained unpaid.

The application judge dismissed the application, finding that the appellant failed to establish special circumstances warranting assessment of the paid accounts under section 11 of the Solicitors Act, and declined to exercise inherent jurisdiction to assess the unpaid accounts.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, finding no error in the application judge's factual findings or legal analysis.

The applicant sought to assess 30 accounts rendered by the respondent law firm, alleging incompetence and malfeasance.

The application was dismissed, and the respondent sought costs of $31,877.30.

The court found the respondent's claimed hourly rate and preparation time reasonable given the complexity of the facts and the gravity of the allegations.

After a minor deduction for an issue on which the applicant was successful, the court ordered the applicant to pay costs of $30,458.38 forthwith.

The applicant sought to assess 30 accounts rendered by his former law firm in a family law matter, alleging the firm failed to prepare for trial and demanded an exorbitant additional retainer.

The court found that the applicant, a sophisticated client, had deliberately obstructed trial preparation and orchestrated the breakdown of the solicitor-client relationship to obtain an adjournment.

The court held that no special circumstances existed to justify assessing the accounts and dismissed the application.

The applicant's motion for a sealing order was partially granted to redact identifying information about his children, but otherwise dismissed as the information was already public and solicitor-client privilege was waived by the nature of the allegations.

The appellant appealed from a trial judge's order declaring that the respondent Mikhail Malkov was the sole beneficial owner of a property in Thornhill and requiring the appellant and her former husband to transfer all their right, title and interest in the property to Mikhail.

The trial judge had found that the appellant and her former husband held title to the property on a resulting trust in favour of Mikhail.

The sole ground of appeal was that the trial judge conducted the proceedings unfairly by refusing to allow the appellant to call a lawyer as a witness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly exercised her discretion in refusing to allow the reopening of the case.

The appellant client appealed a motion judge's order refusing to confirm an Assessment Officer's Report and Certificate regarding the respondent solicitor's accounts.

The solicitor had abandoned the assessment hearing after his adjournment request was denied.

The Assessment Officer reduced the accounts from over $1 million to $325,789.01.

The motion judge refused to confirm the report, finding the Assessment Officer's reasons inadequate and imposing an evidentiary burden on the client.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the motion judge erred in law by reversing the onus of proof, which rests entirely on the solicitor to prove the reasonableness of his fees.

Given the solicitor's failure to adduce any evidence, the Assessment Officer's reasons were adequate.

A solicitor appealed a motion judge's order regarding the assessment of legal accounts rendered to a client.

The solicitor challenged the characterization of 37 of 38 accounts as interim accounts falling within the limitation period for assessment, and sought production of the client's communications with another lawyer and tax documents.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's findings, finding no error in characterizing the accounts as interim based on the retainer agreement, account markings, and transmittal letters.

The court also found no basis to interfere with the motion judge's discretionary decision to refuse production of the requested documents as irrelevant to the assessment issues.

The solicitor brought a motion to stay the assessment of his accounts pending the trial judge's decision in the underlying matrimonial matter, to restrict the assessment to his final account, and for production of certain documents from the client.

The court granted a temporary stay of the assessment until the trial judge released the substantive decision, finding that the assessment officer needed to know the results achieved to properly assess the accounts.

However, the court refused to restrict the assessment to the final account, concluding that all 37 prior accounts were interim, not final.

The court also dismissed the solicitor's request for production of the client's communications with another lawyer and her tax returns, finding them privileged and irrelevant.

A law firm appealed a motion judge's order declaring that certain payments made to their former client pursuant to a settlement agreement were not subject to three charging orders in the firm's favour.

The charging orders were granted for work done in a shareholder dispute before the firm's retainer was terminated.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the disputed payments arose from subsequent litigation commenced after the firm's retainer ended, and therefore were not recovered or preserved through the firm's instrumentality.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant lawyer was sued for defamation by the opposing party in a former matrimonial proceeding.

The lawyer sought to use documents provided to him by his former client to defend the defamation action, and moved for relief from the deemed undertaking rule.

The motion judge dismissed the motion and ordered the lawyer to return the documents to his former client.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the deemed undertaking rule did not apply because the documents were not obtained under the discovery rules, but rather provided by the client to her own lawyer.

The Court also set aside the order to return the documents, as neither party had requested that relief.

The moving party brought a motion opposing confirmation of a solicitor‑client assessment report and certificate that reduced legal accounts from approximately $147,553.94 to $116,000 plus interest and costs.

The motion alleged errors in docket entries, improper fees charged after the solicitors were removed from the record, and procedural unfairness before the Assessment Officer.

The court held that a motion opposing confirmation under Rule 54.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure is in the nature of an appeal and that intervention is warranted only for error in principle, jurisdictional error, or clear misapprehension of evidence.

After reviewing the materials and the lengthy reasons of the Assessment Officer, the court found no such error.

The report and certificate were confirmed and the motion dismissed.

The solicitor brought a motion seeking to stay an ongoing assessment of legal accounts before an assessment officer, arguing that issues of law raised in the assessment exceeded the officer’s jurisdiction under the Solicitors Act.

The client opposed, asserting the assessment officer had jurisdiction and that the objection was raised too late after the solicitor had already participated in the assessment process.

The court reviewed the limited jurisdiction of assessment officers, noting they determine quantum but cannot resolve genuine disputes about retainers or broader legal issues.

Because the solicitor intended to raise issues including champerty, maintenance, and intentional interference with contractual relations, the court held that these matters required determination by a judge.

The assessment proceeding was therefore stayed on condition that the solicitor commence an action or application within 60 days to determine the adequacy of the account and related issues.

The appellant solicitors appealed a motion judge's order regarding the assessment of their accounts.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusion that there was a single retainer covering multiple matters, making the earlier bills interim rather than final.

Because the order for assessment was obtained within thirty days of the final bill, it properly applied to all accounts.

Leave to appeal the costs order was also refused.

Following the release of its decision on the appeal, the Court of Appeal for Ontario received and considered written submissions on costs.

The court awarded costs of the appeal to the respondent, fixed at $4,500 inclusive of GST.

The parties separated in 1989.

The husband, a disbarred lawyer who had been incarcerated for fraud, brought a claim for equalization of net family property in 1997, two years after the limitation period expired.

He moved for an extension of time under s. 2(8) of the Family Law Act.

The motions judge dismissed the motion, finding the husband did not meet the requirements of good faith and lack of substantial prejudice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the husband's appeal, finding that he failed to show apparent grounds for relief given the wife's overwhelming claim for an unequal division, and that his delay was not incurred in good faith.