Gokavi and Gokavi v. Lojek, Jones & Co., (1986) 49 Sask.R. 82 (QB)
Judge | Geatros, J. |
Court | Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada) |
Case Date | June 16, 1986 |
Jurisdiction | Saskatchewan |
Citations | (1986), 49 Sask.R. 82 (QB) |
Gokavi v. Lojek (1986), 49 Sask.R. 82 (QB)
MLB headnote and full text
Gokavi and Gokavi v. Lojek, Jones & Company
(No. 128 A.D. 1986)
Indexed As: Gokavi and Gokavi v. Lojek, Jones & Co.
Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench
Geatros, J.
June 16, 1986.
Summary:
The plaintiff clients retained the defendant law firm respecting a personal injury action. The action was brought to trial but was dismissed. The law firm submitted a bill to their clients. The clients applied under s. 82 of the Legal Professions Act for taxation of the bill. The law firm sought to recover their fees based on time charges pursuant to the retainer agreement. The clients alleged that the agreement provided for no recovery of fees if their action did not succeed.
The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the law firm could not tax its bill based on time charges.
Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 3169
Compensation - Agreements - The retainer - Duty to client before accepting retainer - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench referred to the duty of lawyers to ensure that their clients thoroughly understand not only the terms but also the effect of a retainer agreement - Failure to do so in the case at bar deprived the lawyers of their fees based on time charges - See paragraphs 10 to 12.
Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 3171
Compensation - Agreements - The retainer - Elements of valid retainer - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that there was no requirement of the payment of a fee at the outset to obtain the services of counsel for a document to constitute a true retainer agreement - See paragraphs 13 to 15.
Contracts - Topic 7433
Interpretation - Ambiguity - Contra proferentem rule - Retainer agreement - Lawyers - A retainer agreement drafted by solicitors was ambiguous - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench applied the contra proferentem rule and construed the agreement against the solicitors, so that they could not recover their fees based on time charges where the clients' action was dismissed at trial - See paragraphs 18 to 19.
Cases Noticed:
Kapoor, Selnes & Associates, Re (1985), 36 Sask.R. 280, refd to. [para. 2].
MacMahon v. Taugher (1914), 20 D.L.R. 521, appld. [para. 10].
Nagel v. Stevenson, [1980] 2 W.W.R. 417; 1 Sask.R. 221, not appld. [para. 13].
Solicitor, Re (1910), 22 D.L.R. 30, refd to. [para. 13].
Graham v. London Guarantee & Accident Co., [1925] 2 D.L.R. 1037, refd to. [para. 18].
Richardson Construction Co. v. London and Lancashire Guarantee and Accident Co., [1939] 2 D.L.R. 738, refd to. [para. 18].
Statutes Noticed:
Legal Profession Act, R.S.S. 1978, c. L-10, sect. 82 [para. 1].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Ed.), vol. 44, p. 99, para. 131 [para. 9].
Counsel:
J.D. Denis Pelletier, for the applicants;
Donald A. Wilhelm, Q.C., for the respondents.
This application was heard before Geatros, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Battleford, whose decision was delivered on June 16, 1986.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Morrison v. Pantony (Rod) Professional Corp., 2008 ABCA 145
...(Alta.) (2004), 361 A.R. 1; 339 W.A.C. 1; 31 Alta. L.R.(4th) 15; 2004 ABCA 215, refd to. [para. 14]. Gokavi v. Lojek, Jones & Co. (1986), 49 Sask.R. 82 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. Gainers Inc. v. Pocklington Holdings Inc. (2000), 255 A.R. 373; 220 W.A.C. 373; 81 Alta. L.R.(3d) 17; 2000 ABCA......
-
Zipchen v. Bainbridge et al., (2005) 265 Sask.R. 243 (QB)
...Selnes & Associates, Re (1984), 36 Sask.R. 280 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 44]. Gokavi v. Lojek, Jones & Co., [1986] 5 W.W.R. 75; 49 Sask.R. 82 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. McDonald Crawford v. Morrow, [2004] 11 W.W.R. 335; 348 A.R. 118; 321 W.A.C. 118; 244 D.L.R.(4th) 144; 2004 ABCA 150, re......
-
Hill Estate, Re, (1995) 108 Man.R.(2d) 40 (QBM)
...not covered by the initial retainer - See paragraph 13. Cases Noticed: Gokavi and Gokavi v. Lojek, Jones & Co., [1986] 5 W.W.R. 75; 49 Sask.R. 82 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. Statutes Noticed: Law Society Act, R.S.M. 1989, c. L-100; C.C.S.M., c. L-100, sect. 49(4), sect. 49(5), sect. 49(6) [......
-
Dhami v. Brown (James H.) & Associates, (2001) 298 A.R. 60 (QB T.O.)
...Barry Elgert Krause & Peddie, [1998] A.J. No. 151, consd. [para. 8]. Gokavi and Gokavi v. Lojek, Jones & Co., [1986] 5 W.W.R. 75; 49 Sask.R. 82 (Q.B.), consd. [para. 8, footnote Deans et al. v. Armstrong et al. (1983), 149 D.L.R.(3d) 295; 46 B.C.L.R. 273 (S.C.), consd. [para. 10, fo......
-
Morrison v. Pantony (Rod) Professional Corp., 2008 ABCA 145
...(Alta.) (2004), 361 A.R. 1; 339 W.A.C. 1; 31 Alta. L.R.(4th) 15; 2004 ABCA 215, refd to. [para. 14]. Gokavi v. Lojek, Jones & Co. (1986), 49 Sask.R. 82 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. Gainers Inc. v. Pocklington Holdings Inc. (2000), 255 A.R. 373; 220 W.A.C. 373; 81 Alta. L.R.(3d) 17; 2000 ABCA......
-
Zipchen v. Bainbridge et al., (2005) 265 Sask.R. 243 (QB)
...Selnes & Associates, Re (1984), 36 Sask.R. 280 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 44]. Gokavi v. Lojek, Jones & Co., [1986] 5 W.W.R. 75; 49 Sask.R. 82 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. McDonald Crawford v. Morrow, [2004] 11 W.W.R. 335; 348 A.R. 118; 321 W.A.C. 118; 244 D.L.R.(4th) 144; 2004 ABCA 150, re......
-
Hill Estate, Re, (1995) 108 Man.R.(2d) 40 (QBM)
...not covered by the initial retainer - See paragraph 13. Cases Noticed: Gokavi and Gokavi v. Lojek, Jones & Co., [1986] 5 W.W.R. 75; 49 Sask.R. 82 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. Statutes Noticed: Law Society Act, R.S.M. 1989, c. L-100; C.C.S.M., c. L-100, sect. 49(4), sect. 49(5), sect. 49(6) [......
-
Dhami v. Brown (James H.) & Associates, (2001) 298 A.R. 60 (QB T.O.)
...Barry Elgert Krause & Peddie, [1998] A.J. No. 151, consd. [para. 8]. Gokavi and Gokavi v. Lojek, Jones & Co., [1986] 5 W.W.R. 75; 49 Sask.R. 82 (Q.B.), consd. [para. 8, footnote Deans et al. v. Armstrong et al. (1983), 149 D.L.R.(3d) 295; 46 B.C.L.R. 273 (S.C.), consd. [para. 10, fo......