William L. Roland

The applicant law firm sought costs of $32,307.82 following its successful appeal of an assessment officer's decision that had ordered it to refund $662,455.98 to the respondent clients.

On appeal, the court had substituted its own determination, ordering the law firm to pay $475,000.

The respondent clients sought partial indemnity costs of $20,000 for the appeal.

The court held that while the law firm was technically successful in setting aside the certificate of assessment, the substantial award against it should not be diluted by awarding costs against the clients.

The court awarded the respondent clients $15,000 in costs.

The applicant law firm appealed a Certificate of Assessment that reduced its legal accounts of nearly $600,000 to nil and ordered a refund of $662,455.98 to the respondent clients.

The Assessment Officer had found the fees to be so grossly excessive as to amount to fraud.

On appeal, the Superior Court held that the Assessment Officer did not exceed her jurisdiction in assessing the accounts or in making circumscribed findings of fraud.

However, the court found an error in principle in reducing the value of the legal services entirely to nil despite the poor outcome for the clients.

Rather than remitting the matter, the court substituted its own determination, ordering the law firm to refund $475,000 inclusive of interest and substantial indemnity costs.

Following a decision regarding the assessment of a law firm's accounts, the court received cost submissions.

The respondent law firm sought $14,800 in costs, including a $10,000 disbursement for a transcript.

The applicant opposed the transcript costs and alleged duplication.

The court found the requested costs modest, upheld the necessity of the transcript, and fixed costs at $10,800 inclusive of disbursements and HST, to be set off against the amount the law firm was ordered to repay the applicant.