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.

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 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.