Is a contract unenforceable if one of the parties has not agreed to the terms?

In my opinion, the equitable jurisdiction emphasized in Waldock v. Bissett includes the authority to declare a written contract unenforceable where one of the parties has not in fact agreed to its terms, on the ground that it would be unfair to enforce it in the circumstances. On the findings of fact made by the trial judge, I think that the circumstances of this case meet the test of unfairness.

Although this case deals with interpretation of a contract for legal services (unlike the case at bar), in my view the principles enumerated in Abel v. Burke are equally applicable here. Specifically, the equitable right for a registrar to review the contract for legal services creates in the registrar a residual jurisdiction to determine the fees appropriately payable by the client to the solicitors even after termination of the contract by the solicitor. In that regard, I note, particularly, the comments of Hall, J.A., at para. 3, as follows: