28.11.2012 Views

court of appeal for ontario - academicfreedom.ca

court of appeal for ontario - academicfreedom.ca

court of appeal for ontario - academicfreedom.ca

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

[89] Finally, I want to address the Rules <strong>of</strong> Pr<strong>of</strong>essional Conduct <strong>of</strong> the Law Society<br />

<strong>of</strong> Upper Canada. Again, the appli<strong>ca</strong>tion that underlies this <strong>appeal</strong> does not <strong>ca</strong>ll <strong>for</strong> a<br />

determination whether the proposed agreement contravenes these Rules. Be<strong>ca</strong>use this<br />

argument was not fully developed on the <strong>appeal</strong>, I think the issue <strong>of</strong> the appli<strong>ca</strong>tion <strong>of</strong><br />

those Rules is better left <strong>for</strong> another oc<strong>ca</strong>sion. That said, the Rules <strong>of</strong> Pr<strong>of</strong>essional<br />

Conduct and the complaints and disciplinary regimes <strong>of</strong> the Law Society clearly have a<br />

role to play in ensuring that lawyers who enter into contingency fee agreements follow<br />

the ethi<strong>ca</strong>l and pr<strong>of</strong>essional standards set out in the Rules, so that the abuses feared in the<br />

past do not become a reality in the future.<br />

DISPOSITION<br />

[90] For the reasons above, I would allow the <strong>appeal</strong> and set aside the judgment <strong>of</strong> the<br />

<strong>court</strong> below. Rather than dismissing the appli<strong>ca</strong>tion brought by the respondent, I would<br />

stay that appli<strong>ca</strong>tion on the basis that it is premature.<br />

[91] As to costs, the respondent has achieved substantial success on the central issues<br />

raised by the appli<strong>ca</strong>tion and on this <strong>appeal</strong>. The appli<strong>ca</strong>tions judge determined in the<br />

exercise <strong>of</strong> her discretion that, be<strong>ca</strong>use <strong>of</strong> the novelty <strong>of</strong> the issue raised, this was a <strong>ca</strong>se<br />

in which there should be no order as to costs <strong>for</strong> the proceeding be<strong>for</strong>e her. I would not<br />

interfere with that decision.<br />

[92] However, I would order that the appellant pay to the respondent 80 percent <strong>of</strong> the<br />

costs <strong>of</strong> this <strong>appeal</strong> on a partial indemnity basis. If the parties are unable to agree upon<br />

the amount <strong>of</strong> the costs, the respondent shall deliver a bill <strong>of</strong> costs, together with any<br />

submissions in writing within 30 days <strong>of</strong> the release <strong>of</strong> this judgment. The appellant shall<br />

have 7 days from the date <strong>of</strong> receiving such submissions to make written submissions in<br />

response.<br />

[4] [93] I would make no order with respect to the costs <strong>of</strong> the<br />

interveners.<br />

RELEASED: “SEP 10 2002”<br />

“DOC”<br />

“Dennis O’Connor A.C.J.O.”<br />

“I agree R.S. Abella J.A.”<br />

“I agree J.C. MacPherson J.A.”<br />

2002 CanLII 45046 (ON CA)

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!