Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NOS.: CV-20-00686922-0000

DATE: 20201102

RE: CARL ANTHONY TULLOCH, Applicant

AND:

JAMES JAGTOO and JAGTOO & JAGTOO PROFESSIONAL CORP BARRISTERS, SOLICITORS & NOTARIES, Respondent

BEFORE: G. Dow, J.

HEARD: Written Submissions

COUNSEL: Applicant, self-represented and acting in person Michael Jagtoo, respondent

Endorsement

G. DOW, J.

[1] The applicant, Mr. Tulloch retained the respondent lawyer, James Jagtoo and his firm to prosecute a claim for defamation and breach of privacy. This proceeded to a summary judgment hearing on November 25, 2019. Justice S. O’Brien awarded Mr. Tulloch $15,000.00 but that no costs were payable.

[2] Mr. Jagtoo’s account for services is purported to be $147,845.94. Mr. Tulloch disputes that quantum. This Application seeks to have the court assess (and reduce) Mr. Jagtoo’s account or, alternatively, require the account to be assessed by an Assessment Officer.

[3] In fact, having delivered its accounts and having not been paid in full, the respondents caused a Solicitor/Client Preliminary Appointment to be issued on August 12, 2020 with an order for assessment by an Assessment Officer. The notice indicates that a one day hearing will be scheduled. Mr. Jagtoo has deposed the hearing will take about two days (at paragraph 8 of his affidavit sworn on October 2, 2020).

[4] I see no reason to interfere with the usual process of how a solicitor and their own client accounts are assessed and as provided for under the Solicitor’s Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.15.

[5] I am reinforced in this conclusion by review of Rule 14.05 which sets out the type of cases that should proceed by way of Application. It does not expressly provide for this type of Application. Further, the “any matter” subparagraph (Rule 14.05(3)(h)) which permits “any matter where it is unlikely that there would be any material facts in dispute” does not seem to apply given the discrepancy between the amount being charged and the limited success achieved at the summary judgment motion.

[6] This Application is dismissed. The respondent sought costs but provided no Costs Outline as required under Rule 57.01(6). I have concluded this is one of the rare situations where costs should be and are reserved to the Assessment Officer that determines the quantum of the Solicitor/Client Assessment.

Mr. Justice G. Dow

Released: November 2, 2020