Is collusion made out where a party conspired to deprive a solicitor of his fees?

Dicarllo v. McLean (1915), 33 O.L.R. 231 (S.C. (A.D.)) is to the same effect. Collusion is made out where the court is satisfied that the object or purpose of the agreement was to deprive the solicitor of his fees. In that case, going behind the backs of both his own solicitor and that of the plaintiff, the defendant arranged for the plaintiff, an impecunious Italian labourer, to be taken to another town where he was paid a relatively small sum to settle the case. The plaintiff immediately returned to Italy. Middleton J. concluded that collusion was made out, at p. 235: [The defendant] knew that the costs were heavy. He desired to end the litigation with the least possible expenditure of money. He knew that the plaintiff could not have paid his solicitors. He knew that the plaintiff, when given this money, would not pay his solicitors. He was ready to assist the plaintiff to leave the country without discharging his obligation. He displayed that reckless disregard for the rights of others which amounts to dishonesty, and he acquiesced in, if he did not suggest, the plaintiff’s dishonesty