Court File and Parties
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]
Background
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.
2Mr. 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.
3In 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]
Analysis
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.
5I 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]
Disposition and Costs
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