Athwal v Mather, 2019 ABQB 801
| Judge | Honourable Mr. Justice G.S. Dunlop |
| Citation | 2019 ABQB 801 |
| Docket Number | 1703 03068 |
| Court | Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada) |
| Date | 17 October 2019 |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
4 practice notes
-
Tallcree First Nation v Rath & Company,
...required is a classic form of hindsight analysis. Contrary to what was suggested in Athwal (Litigation representative of) v Mather, 2019 ABQB 801 at para. 18, 42 CPC (8th) 308 this is not a relevant factor in determining the reasonableness of a contingency fee [72] &#......
-
Stanchfield v Doe,
...the view that 25% was a more appropriate contingency award amount having regard to various factors: Morrison at para 27; Athwal v Mather, 2019 ABQB 801 at para 5 (citing MS v DM, 2014 ABQB 702 at para 43) Further, the Public Trustee's position is that no costs and disbursements should ......
-
Tallcree First Nation v Rath & Co,
...a fair and reasonable contingency fee: see for example MS v DM, 2014 ABQB 702; Downes v Botan, 2018 ABQB 341; Athwal v Mather, 2019 ABQB 801. What these cases and others describe is a process in which the Court exercises its “discretion” according to certain parameters in dete......
-
Tallcree First Nation v Rath & Co,
...a fair and reasonable contingency fee: see for example MS v DM, 2014 ABQB 702; Downes v Botan, 2018 ABQB 341; Athwal v Mather, 2019 ABQB 801. What these cases and others describe is a process in which the Court exercises its “discretion” according to certain parameters in determining a fair......
4 cases
-
Tallcree First Nation v Rath & Company,
...required is a classic form of hindsight analysis. Contrary to what was suggested in Athwal (Litigation representative of) v Mather, 2019 ABQB 801 at para. 18, 42 CPC (8th) 308 this is not a relevant factor in determining the reasonableness of a contingency fee [72] &#......
-
Stanchfield v Doe,
...the view that 25% was a more appropriate contingency award amount having regard to various factors: Morrison at para 27; Athwal v Mather, 2019 ABQB 801 at para 5 (citing MS v DM, 2014 ABQB 702 at para 43) Further, the Public Trustee's position is that no costs and disbursements should ......
-
Tallcree First Nation v Rath & Co,
...a fair and reasonable contingency fee: see for example MS v DM, 2014 ABQB 702; Downes v Botan, 2018 ABQB 341; Athwal v Mather, 2019 ABQB 801. What these cases and others describe is a process in which the Court exercises its “discretion” according to certain parameters in determining a fair......
-
Tallcree First Nation v Rath & Co,
...a fair and reasonable contingency fee: see for example MS v DM, 2014 ABQB 702; Downes v Botan, 2018 ABQB 341; Athwal v Mather, 2019 ABQB 801. What these cases and others describe is a process in which the Court exercises its “discretion” according to certain parameters in dete......