In Bogue v. Miracle (Ont CA, 2025) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal, here from a "judgment of the motion judge that granted summary judgment against him" and "the solicitor’s lien granted to the respondent.":
Here the court considers the law of solicitor's liens:
[22] The motion judge determined that the respondent could not obtain a solicitor’s lien under s. 34 of the Solicitors Act because the fees arose out of an arbitration and not a proceeding in the Superior Court of Justice. I do not see any error in that conclusion. The wording of s. 34 is clear on this point.
[23] However, the motion judge also determined that the respondent was entitled to a common law solicitor’s lien. A solicitor’s lien under s. 34 and at common law have been said to be “two sides of the same coin”: Weenen v. Biadi, 2018 ONCA 288, 141 O.R. (3d) 276, at para. 16. The granting of a solicitor’s lien is also discretionary. The test for granting either form of solicitor’s lien is the same. Three factors are to be considered:
a) the fund or property is in existence at the time the order is granted;
b) the property was "recovered or preserved" through the instrumentality of the solicitor; and
c) there must be some evidence that the client cannot or will not pay the lawyer's fees.
The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.
