McDonald Crawford v. Morrow,

• Judge: Côté, Russell and Berger, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2004 ABCA 150
• Citation: 2004 ABCA 150,(2004), 348 A.R. 118 (CA),244 DLR (4th) 144,[2004] 11 WWR 335,28 Alta LR (4th) 62,348 AR 118,[2004] AJ No 496 (QL),[2004] A.J. No 496 (QL),348 A.R. 118,(2004), 348 AR 118 (CA),244 D.L.R. (4th) 144
• Date: 31 October 2003
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)

McDonald Crawford v. Morrow (2004), 348 A.R. 118 (CA);

    321 W.A.C. 118

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] A.R. TBEd. MY.031

McDonald Crawford (appellant/applicant) v. Sam Morrow (respondent/respondent)

(0203-0298-AC; 2004 ABCA 150)

Indexed As: McDonald Crawford v. Morrow

Alberta Court of Appeal

Côté, Russell and Berger, JJ.A.

May 3, 2004.

Summary:

A law firm applied to have a bill taxed. The client did not attend and the bill was allowed in full. The court granted the client an extension of time to appeal the taxation and referred the matter back to the taxing officer. The taxing officer referred the matter back to the court after the client raised the issue of whether the firm could properly charge a bonus based on the interpretation of a retainer letter.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 324 A.R. 8, held that the hearing before it was a trial de novo and not an appeal from the first taxation of the taxing officer. The court reviewed the retainer letter and held that it did not provide for a bonus. The court found that the firm charged on an hourly rate, they were paid on an hourly rate, and that was the amount to which they were entitled. The firm appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, Côté, J.A., dissenting, dismissed the appeal.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 3047

Compensation - Agreements - Interpretation - The Alberta Court of Appeal stated that "an agreement for fees must be construed as of the date upon which it is made and not after settlement has taken place" - See paragraph 10.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 3168

Compensation - Agreements - The retainer - Scope of - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench reviewed a retainer letter and held that it did not provide for a bonus - The law firm appealed - The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The court stated that "the fundamental principle governing legal fees is that a solicitor may not stipulate for, charge or accept any fee that is not fully disclosed, fair and reasonable. In the absence of an express agreement, the solicitor's obligation of utmost good faith precludes the reservation of a right to charge a bonus if there is resounding success. A 'premium' fee based on a favourable result in the absence of full prior disclosure is wholly inconsistent with the obligation of the solicitor to clearly and fairly advise a client of the terms of his or her contract" - See paragraph 17.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 3301

Compensation - Measure of compensation -General - Rule 613 provided a list of factors to be considered in determining a solicitor's reasonable compensation - The Alberta Court of Appeal stated that "Rule 613 factors apply to the taxation of a solicitor's account absent any agreement as to fees, or when an agreement invokes or can be interpreted to invoke the Rule. If a solicitor and his or her client have not agreed beforehand on what the solicitor's charges will be, the solicitor is entitled to reasonable compensation on a quantum meruit basis, to be measured by the factors listed in Rule 613. ... it is not open to the lawyer to invoke Rule 613 to increase the fees beyond what was contracted for." - See paragraphs 11 and 14.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 3304

Compensation - Measure of compensation -Quantum meruit - Reasonable charges - [See Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 3301 ].

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 3305

Compensation - Measure of compensation -Bonus - [See Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 3168 ].

Practice - Topic 8361

Costs - Appeals - Appeals from taxation - General (incl. standard of review) - At issue in an appeal was whether a solicitor bound by a retainer agreement could seek a higher fee on taxation when the agreement did not expressly so provide - The Alberta Court of Appeal stated that "The standard of review with respect to the interpretation of a contract is correctness ... It follows that although, pursuant to Rule 601(1) of the Rules of Court, costs of any proceedings and the party who is to pay them are at the discretion of the Court, and although an award of costs is, accordingly, subject to the contract, at the discretion of the presiding judge ... and although the standard for the exercise of discretion is reasonableness ... when the exercise of discretion is founded upon the interpretation of a contract, the standard of review remains correctness. ... [W]here the proper interpretation of a retainer contract between solicitors and their client is a central issue on appeal, fact findings that warrant deference are not essentially at play." - See paragraphs 5 to 7.

Cases Noticed:

Western Irrigation District v. Alberta et al. (2002), 312 A.R. 358; 281 W.A.C. 358; 33 M.P.L.R.(3d) 62; 2002 ABCA 200, refd to. [paras. 5, 43].

Meyer v. Partec Lavalin Inc. et al., [2001] 8 W.W.R. 628; 281 A.R. 339; 248 W.A.C. 339; 2001 ABCA 145, leave to appeal denied (2002), 289 N.R. 198; 299 A.R. 327; 266 W.A.C. 327 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 5, 43].

Tat v. Ellis et al. (1999), 228 A.R. 263; 188 W.A.C. 263 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Braithwaite, Boyle and Associates et al., Re (1995), 171 A.R. 76; 33 Alta. L.R.(3d) 81 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 8].

Collier and Swingle, Re (1960), 36 W.W.R.(N.S.) 695 (Alta. T.O.), refd to. [paras. 10, 72].

Speers v. Hagemeister (1974), 52 D.L.R.(3d) 109 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Galbraith v. Murray, Robertson & Thomas, [1930] 4 D.L.R. 1005; [1930] 3 W.W.R. 120 (Man. K.B.), refd to. [para. 10].

Molstad Gilbert v. Douglas Rentals Ltd., [1983] A.J. No. 664 (Q.B. Master), agreed with [paras. 12, 129].

Rusnak v. A.C.H.A.I.A. Holdings Ltd. (1983), 51 A.R. 196 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 14].

Gibson v. Bassie, Kantor & Plupek, [1985] A.J. No. 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Campney & Murphy v. Arctic Installations (Victoria) Ltd. et al., [1994] 3 W.W.R. 178; 39 B.C.A.C. 173; 64 W.A.C. 173 (C.A.), folld. [paras. 17, 109].

London Loan & Savings Co. v. Brickenden, [1933] S.C.R. 257; [1933] 3 D.L.R. 161, refd to. [para. 17].

Ladner Downs v. Crowley (1987), 14 B.C.L.R.(2d) 357 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 17].

Fraser & Co. v. Holden, [1988] B.C.J. No. 1164 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Swinton & Co. v. Perry, [1985] B.C.J. No. 2850 (Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 17].

Fine & Deo v. Buchta, [1994] O.J. No. 1437 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 17].

Gaglardi v. Gaglardi, [1983] 4 W.W.R. 752 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 19].

Severin et al. v. Veal et al., [1999] A.R. Uned. 275; 1999 ABCA 258, refd to. [para. 34].

Friends of the Oldman River Society et al. v. Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists (Alta.) et al. (2001), 277 A.R. 378; 242 W.A.C. 378; 199 D.L.R.(4th) 85; 2001 ABCA 107, leave to appeal denied (2001), 284 N.R. 193; 299 A.R. 185; 266 W.A.C. 185 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 42].

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 42].

McLennan Ross v. Keen Industries Ltd. (No. 2) (1988), 86 A.R. 311 (C.A.), affing. (1987), 83 A.R. 322 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

Mercantile Bank of Canada (Keen Industries Ltd.) v. McLennan Ross (No. 2) - see McLennan Ross v. Keen Industries Ltd. (No. 2).

Carter v. Blake (1982), 41 A.R. 418 (N.W.T.C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

Nelson v. Densmore (1991), 116 A.R. 318 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 48].

Snyder & Co. v. Lautrec Acquisition Co. (1996), 192 A.R. 275 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 48].

509703 Alberta Ltd. v. Witten Binder, 2000 ABQB 729, refd to. [para. 48].

Owners-Condominium Plan No. 911945 v. Zavislake and Meadows (1998), 215 A.R. 355; 1998 ABQB 160, refd to. [para. 48].

Anderson v. Brink (B.V.) Professional Corp. (1990), 107 A.R. 143 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

Panther Petroleum Ltd. v. Code Hunter, [2002] A.R. Uned. 232; 2002 ABQB 158, refd to. [para. 49].

MacDonald & Freund v. Chernetski (1987), 81 A.R. 142 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 58].

Canada Life Casualty Insurance Co. v. Pahl, [1998] 3 W.W.R. 263; 207 A.R. 65 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 58].

Grand Trunk Railway Co. of Canada v. Robinson, [1915] A.C. 740; 22 D.L.R. 1 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 59].

Canada Foundry Co. v. Edmonton Portland Cement Co., [1918] 3 W.W.R. 866; 43 D.L.R. 583 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 59].

Forbes v. Git, [1922] 1 A.C. 256; [1922] 1 W.W.R. 250 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 59].

Cie Française du Phénix v. Travelers Fire Insurance Co., [1952] 2 S.C.R. 190, refd to. [para. 59].

Hassard v. Peace River Co-operative Seed Growers Association Ltd., [1954] 2 D.L.R. 50 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 59].

Cooke v. Anderson, [1945] 2 D.L.R. 698; [1945] 1 W.W.R. 657 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 59].

Melanesian Mission Trust Board v. Australian Mutual Provident Society, [1997] 1 N.Z.L.R. 391 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 59].

BG Checo International Ltd. v. British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 12; 147 N.R. 81; 20 B.C.A.C. 241; 35 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 59].

Yien Yieh Comm. Bank v. Kwai Chung Cold Storage Co., [1989] L.R.C. (Comm.) 527 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 60].

Lewis v. Barrett, [1982] 2 E.G.L.R. 127; 264 E.G. 1079 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 60].

Barthel v. Scotten (1895), 24 S.C.R. 367, refd to. [para. 64].

Watson v. Jamieson (1910), 12 W.L.R. 667 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 64].

London & Lancashire Fire Insurance Co. v. Bolands Ltd., [1924] A.C. 836; 93 L.J.P.C. 230 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 65].

Survey Aircraft Ltd. v. Stevenson, [1962] S.C.R. 555; 38 W.W.R.(N.S.) 280, refd to. [para. 65].

Birrell v. Dryer (1884), 9 App. Cas. 345 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 66].

Texaco Antilles Ltd. v. Kernochan, [1973] A.C. 609; [1973] 2 All E.R. 118 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 72].

Canadian National Railway Co. v. Volker Stevin Contracting Ltd. et al. (1991), 120 A.R. 39; 8 W.A.C. 39; 1 Alta.L.R.(3d) 167 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 86].

Stellar Enterprises Ltd. v. Walsh Young, [1982] A.U.D. 1887; [1982] A.J. No. 45 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 93].

Way v. Latilla, [1937] 3 All E.R. 759 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 113].

Petit (Lou) Trucking Ltd. v. Petit, [1990] 3 W.W.R. 252; 64 Man.R.(2d) 139 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 113].

Watson v. Veit (1996), 75 B.C.A.C. 72; 123 W.A.C. 72 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 113].

Wainoco Oil & Gas Ltd. v. Solick (1987), 77 A.R. 20; 49 Alta. L.R.(2d) 390 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 114].

Nissen v. Calgary (City) (1983), 51 A.R. 252 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 114].

Lennie, DeBow & Martin v. Richter (1984), 55 A.R. 26 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 114].

Harwood v. Harwood, [1998] A.R. Uned. 82; 61 Alta. L.R.(3d) 56; 1998 ABQB 96, refd to. [para. 127].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court (Alta.), rule 613 [para. 3].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Broom's Legal Maxims (10th Ed. 1939), pp. 402, 407 [para. 64].

Chitty on Contracts (28th Ed. 1999), vol. 1, paras. 12-061, 12-076 [para. 59]; 12-081 [paras. 64, 67]; 12-090 [para. 86].

Cordery on Solicitors (9th Ed. 1995) (2003 Looseleaf Update), p. E/251, para. 401 [para. 58].

Fridman, Gerald Henry Louis, The Law of Contract in Canada (3rd Ed. 1994), p. 470 [para. 64].

Kerans, Roger P., Standards of Review Employed by Appellate Courts (1994), p. 122 [para. 6].

Law Society of Alberta, Code of Professional Conduct, c. 13, rule 2 [para. 15].

Lewison, Kim, The Interpretation of Contracts (2nd Ed. 1997), p. 170 [para. 65]; paras. 3.03 [para. 69]; 4.13 [para. 72]; 6.02, 6.03 [para. 59]; 6.07 [para. 65]; 7.01 [para. 67]; 8.13 [para. 59].

Odgers, Construction of Deeds and Statutes (5th Ed. 1967), pp. 55, 56 [para. 59].

Orkin, Mark M., The Law of Costs (2nd Ed. 1987), p. 84 [para. 8].

Counsel:

J.C. Crawford, Q.C., for the appellant;

A. Oshry, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on October 31, 2003, by Côté, Russell and Berger, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal. On May 3, 2004, the court delivered its decision, which included the following opinions:

Berger, J.A. (Russell, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 21;

Côté, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 22 to 134.