Thompson v. Thompson et al., 2005 SKQB 345

• Judge: Rothery, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: August 16, 2005
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2005 SKQB 345;(2005), 268 Sask.R. 111 (QB)

Thompson v. Thompson (2005), 268 Sask.R. 111 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] Sask.R. TBEd. SE.022

Darlene Adele Thompson (Martin) (petitioner) v. Ian Keith Thompson (respondent) and Merchant Law Group (third party respondent)

(DIV. No. 470400411/1998; 2005 SKQB 345)

Indexed As: Thompson v. Thompson et al.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Estevan

Rothery, J.

August 16, 2005.

Summary:

The plaintiff entered into a bonus fee agreement with the Merchant Law Group (Merchant) to represent her in a divorce. Three months after trial, the plaintiff applied for a declaration that the fee agreement was neither fair nor reasonable and for an order that the statement of account be referred to the local registrar for assessment.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the agreement was fair and reasonable. The plaintiff's application for an order that the statement of account be referred for assessment was dismissed.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 3044

Compensation - Agreements - General - Requirement that agreement be fair and reasonable - The plaintiff entered into a bonus fee agreement with the Merchant Law Group (Merchant) - The agreement provided that if the plaintiff obtained a judgment of $300,000 or more, Merchant would receive a bonus of 60%, or 1.6 times the hourly rate, plus any costs awarded to the plaintiff - The plaintiff obtained a judgment in excess of $300,000 - Legal fees totalled $170,605 - Three months later, the plaintiff applied for a declaration that the fee agreement was neither fair nor reasonable - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the bonus fee was in effect a contingent fee - The contingent fee agreement was fair and reasonable but the agreement that Merchant receive taxable costs was unfair - The plaintiff was entitled to keep any costs awarded to her - The plaintiff was a well-educated business person who understood the contingent fee agreement but did not understand what she was giving up regarding taxable costs - The trial was lengthy and complicated - Merchant carried the plaintiff's account for six years before receiving fees - See paragraphs 12 to 17.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 3127

Compensation - Agreements, contingent fees - Contingent fee defined - The plaintiff entered into a bonus fee agreement with the Merchant Law Group (Merchant) - The agreement provided that Merchant would receive a bonus of 60% if the plaintiff obtained a judgment in excess of $300,000 - Three months after trial, the plaintiff applied for a declaration that the agreement was neither fair nor reasonable - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the agreement was fair and reasonable - As remuneration that was contingent in part upon a successful disposition of the matter, the bonus fee was a contingent fee - The fact that the agreement did not comply with the rules regarding contingent fee agreements did not prohibit the bonus - Section 64 of the Legal Profession Act allowed the court to override the rules to deem the agreement fair and reasonable - See paragraphs 7 to 11.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 3130

Compensation - Agreements - Contingent fees - Review and approval - [See Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 3044 and Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 3127 ].

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 3245

Compensation - Taxation or assessment of accounts - Limitation period - The plaintiff entered into a bonus fee agreement with the Merchant Law Group (Merchant) - The agreement provided that if the plaintiff obtained a judgment of $300,000 or more, Merchant would receive a bonus of 60%, or 1.6 times the hourly rate, plus any costs awarded to the plaintiff - The plaintiff obtained a judgment in excess of $300,000 - Legal fees totalled $170,605 - Three months later, the plaintiff applied for taxation of Merchant's bill of fees - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application - Special circumstances did not exist to justify an order for taxation beyond the 30-day period - See paragraph 16.

Cases Noticed:

Zipchen v. Bainbridge et al. (2005), 265 Sask.R. 243; 2005 SKQB 218, refd to. [para. 9].

Speers v. Hagemeister (1974), 52 D.L.R.(3d) 109 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Thorstad & Danyliuk v. Isley, [1993] 6 W.W.R. 181; 110 Sask.R. 100 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 16].

Statutes Noticed:

Legal Profession Act, S.S. 1990-91, c. L-10.1, sect. 64 [para. 7].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Law Society of Saskatchewan, Law Society Rules, rule 1501 [para. 7]; rule 1502(b) [para. 7].

Counsel:

D.P. Kwochka, for the petitioner;

E.F.A. Merchant, Q.C., for the third party respondent.

This application was heard by Rothery, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Estevan, who delivered the following judgment on August 16, 2005.