In Cozzi/Heerdegen, 2016 ONSC 3082, counsel for the plaintiff had a simple retention agreement that calculated hours costs. When counsel commenced an action under the agreement and the collection of his rights in the small claims court, the Assistant Judge objected on the basis of Jane Conte and the obvious prohibition of the Court`s jurisdiction of Small Claims on page 23. However, a decision late last year indicates that the Small Claims Court can again be used by lawyers to recover their outstanding accounts if a written agreement simply provides that fees are calculated on the basis of hourly and hourly rates. Home – Ontario Superior Court of Justice Trials – Legal Fee Disagreements The problem arises. In enacting old English laws, the Ontario Legislature has apparently ignored the fact that England and Canada have very different legal models, particularly with respect to the separation of lawyers from England. As early as 1973, the Ontario Law Reform Commission recognized the problems of the outdated language of the Solicitors Act and wrote, „In many cases, the language used in this statute is archaic and opaque and has caused difficulties in interpreting it.” The legislature has never been able to solve the problem, although it significantly overhauled the Solicitors Act in 2002 by adding item 28.1 and authorizing potential pricing agreements. In the re-examination, Justice Nordheimer wrote for the Board and conceded the possibility of confusion arising from his earlier decision. In particular, her tribute revealed that Jane Conte did not apply to all written fee agreements. In paragraph 33, His honour wrote as follows: Second, there is an arbitration procedure.
If there is a compromise clause in the conservation agreement, the parties must act as mediators. If there is no compromise clause in the conservation agreement, the parties can still accept arbitration. Arbitration has many advantages in terms of quick justice and privacy, where there are ongoing litigation. Click here for an article on the resolution of legal disputes. It is interesting to note that Conte`s counsel argued that the sections specifically relating to emergency pricing agreements should not apply, since the retainer in question is a „hybrid” agreement. Given that there was a specific clause in the conservation agreement that paid the account on the basis of the lawyer`s hourly rates in the event of termination, counsel argued that the agreement was not merely a contingency agreement and that, therefore, the relevant parts of the law did not apply. Nordheimer J. rejected this argument and indicated that the legislation had been clearly worded on the condition that contingency royalty agreements did not contain contingent components. Third, the parties may opt for an assessment under the Solicitors Act until the conservation agreement is called into question. Evaluation is the right procedure for agreements to retain the burden of the fee without a compromise clause. An evaluation generally takes into account the 9 factors described in Cohen v. Kealey-Blaney, a case dating back to 1988: this section appears to contain virtually all conservation agreements.
I therefore conclude that a simple or usual written agreement on royalties does not fit within the scope of letter 16 (1); it is not within the audit requirement at p. 17; and is not prohibited from taking legal action under p. 23. A lawyer who has a simple or usual fee agreement has the right to use the assessment procedure if he wishes, but the lawyer is also entitled to bring an action to recover his rights, as provided by s.