|
Representation - Lawyers - Retainer Agreement. Aylmer Meat Packers Inc. v. Harrison Pensa LLP
In Aylmer Meat Packers Inc. v. Harrison Pensa LLP (Ont CA, 2026) the Ontario Court of Appeal held a contingency retainer agreement to be subject to normal contract principles:[7] The standard of review is not in dispute. The retainer agreement is a contract and the application judge’s interpretation of it is governed by the principles set out by the Supreme Court in Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp., 2014 SCC 53, [2014] 2 S.C.R. 633, and reiterated by this court in Royal Bank of Canada v. Peace Bridge Duty Free Inc., 2025 ONCA 54, 175 O.R. (3d) 371, at para. 25. In the absence of an error in principle or a palpable and overriding error, the application judge’s interpretation of the contract is entitled to deference. . Verbeek v. Kooner
In Verbeek v. Kooner (Ont CA, 2023) the Court of Appeal allowed a lower court's finding of an 'oral retainer agreement', here between client and solicitor:[2] The trial judge allowed the lawyer’s action. She held that the parties had concluded an oral retainer agreement under which the appellant would pay the lawyer on a fees and disbursements basis. The trial judge further concluded that the reasonable amount of outstanding fees was $59,342.42, for which she gave judgment, together with costs in the amount of $22,500.
[3] The appellant appeals, arguing the trial judge erred in her findings regarding an oral retainer agreement. We see no basis for appellate intervention. The trial judge gave detailed reasons explaining her findings, including credibility findings. We are not persuaded they are tainted by palpable and overriding error. As well, her reasons demonstrate that she critically reviewed the evidence about the reasonableness of the fees and disbursements claimed by the lawyer, reducing the amounts claimed. The appeal is dismissed.
|
