Stephane Hutt

A law firm applied for approval of a contingency fee agreement, approval of accounts following termination of the retainer, and authorization to deduct fees and disbursements from funds held in trust.

The court also heard a motion for the firm to be removed as counsel of record after a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship.

While permitting the firm to withdraw from the record, the court declined to approve the contingency fee agreement or automatically enforce hourly rates triggered by termination.

Instead, the court held that the firm was entitled only to reasonable compensation for legal services and directed that the accounts be assessed in the ordinary manner under the Solicitors Act.

Fees relating to escrow agent services were found not to constitute legal services and therefore were not subject to assessment under that regime.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' pleadings or for summary judgment dismissing the claim for unpaid consulting invoices, and alternatively sought security for costs from the corporate plaintiff.

The court declined to strike the pleadings but granted partial summary judgment, dismissing the claims against the individual defendant and one corporate defendant as they were not parties to the consulting agreement.

The claims against the main corporate defendant were directed to trial.

The court also ordered the corporate plaintiff to post security for costs in installments, finding it lacked sufficient assets in Ontario.

Following a motion regarding third and fourth party claims, the court determined costs.

The third party was unsuccessful in dismissing the defendants' third party claim, and the fourth parties were unsuccessful in striking the third party's fourth party claim.

The court found the third party's position regarding the third party claim to be improper and awarded substantial indemnity costs to the defendants.

Although the fourth parties were unsuccessful, the court awarded them partial costs due to the third party's misleading conduct in issuing the fourth party claim.

The third party was ordered to pay costs to both the defendants and the fourth parties.

The third party brought a motion to either strike the third party claim against it or, alternatively, for leave to continue the fourth party claim against the fourth parties.

The action was originally commenced under the Construction Lien Act, which requires leave to add third or fourth parties.

Leave was not sought when the claims were issued.

The court found that the third party claim was saved by a previous order and acquiescence.

The court granted leave nunc pro tunc to issue the fourth party claim, finding it appropriate as the claim was issued within the limitation period and the action had practically moved to the ordinary track.