Master Dash wrote: The matter before me is somewhat analogous to the facts in Aird & Berlis v. Federchuk[1] where the court held that a dispute over whether the lawyers agreed to a cap on fees or whether there was a second oral retainer for additional fees was a dispute over a term of the retainer that went solely to quantum. I repeat what the court said in that case: The assessment officer, in considering the client's expectations as a factor in determining a reasonable fee "must necessarily have jurisdiction to resolve factual issues including credibility and to determine the proper interpretation of oral and written communications from the solicitor in respect of fees in order to decide the reasonableness of the fee. In effect...the Officer is deciding whether there has been any agreement or understanding between the parties as to what the fee would be...This falls squarely within the matters of quantum which are within the jurisdiction" of the assessment officer (emphasis added).
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.