Shoshana Rebecca Bentley-Jacobs

The appellant law firm charged a "results achieved fee" in a family law matter in addition to hourly rates and daily counsel fees.

The respondent client was awarded sole custody of his child, half the proceeds of the matrimonial home, and costs.

The law firm unilaterally deducted the results achieved fee from trust funds.

The respondent objected, and the application judge found the fee constituted a prohibited contingency fee agreement under the Solicitors Act.

The law firm appealed, arguing the fee was a permissible bonus because the client remained liable for fees regardless of outcome and the fee was tied to success at trial rather than a specific monetary result.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that any part of a lawyer's compensation dependent on successful disposition of a matter constitutes a contingency fee agreement prohibited in family law matters.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice referring his solicitor's account dated February 28, 2016 for assessment under the Solicitors Act.

The Court of Appeal determined that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the order was interlocutory rather than final in nature.

The order concerned a preliminary procedural matter directing referral for assessment, not the substantive determination of the account's quantum.

The appellant retained the right to defend the quantum of his account during the assessment process.

Consequently, the appeal was quashed.

The plaintiffs moved for consolidation of two franchise-related actions and for a trial together with a third action involving prior franchisees of the same restaurant.

The claims arose from alleged deficiencies in disclosure under the Arthur Wishart (Franchise Disclosure), 2000 Act in connection with the purchase and resale of the same Lick’s restaurant franchise.

The court held that the two actions involving the same plaintiffs and transaction should be consolidated because they shared common questions of fact and law and arose from the same purchase.

Applying Rule 6.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and factors governing trial together orders, the court also directed that the consolidated action be tried together with the earlier action involving prior franchisees due to overlapping evidence, witnesses, valuation issues, and risk of inconsistent findings.

The court further ordered common documentary and oral discovery, common mediation, and assigned the actions to case management.