William E. Pepall

The appellant and her sisters retained the respondent law firms for estate litigation.

By agreement, the law firms' accounts were paid by a corporation owned by the sisters.

The appellant later discovered the accounts contained substantial undisclosed premiums and sought to have them assessed.

The motion judge dismissed the request, finding the appellant lacked standing as the corporation paid the bills.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant was the true client and had standing.

Furthermore, the Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to order an assessment because the solicitors failed to disclose the premiums or advise the clients of their right to an assessment.

The appellant appealed an order striking his statement of claim for solicitor's negligence and dismissing the action as an abuse of process.

The appellant alleged his former lawyer was negligent in conducting a prior trial regarding a school fire.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that even if the alleged failures had not occurred, the outcome of the underlying action would have been the same due to other fatal findings, such as the claim being statute-barred and lacking damages.

The court also noted that the alleged omissions were, at most, errors in judgment and did not breach the standard of care.

The appellant, an in-house corporate counsel, appealed a trial judge's order making him jointly and severally liable for $140,000 in costs awarded against his employer and related companies.

The trial judge had found that the appellant shared a common financial interest with his clients through an employment agreement, placing him in a conflict of interest with his duty to the court and his clients.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the employment agreement did not actually give the appellant a financial interest in the outcome of the litigation.

Furthermore, the Court held that even if such a financial interest existed, it would align with the clients' interests rather than conflict with them, and would not breach the lawyer's duty to the court absent unprofessional conduct in the litigation.

The costs order against the appellant was set aside.

Following a series of motions related to an upcoming Divisional Court application, the successful plaintiffs and intervenor sought costs.

The plaintiffs sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis and requested they be payable personally by the opposing party's solicitor due to alleged misguided and improper conduct.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale to both the intervenor and the plaintiffs, payable by the opposing party, finding insufficient evidence to order costs personally against the solicitor at this stage.