Applicable Principles of Law:
[12] The principles of law applicable in the assessment of CFAs in the case of a minor are well settled. They are set out, most recently, by McKelvey, J. in Mounce v. Rae, 2017 ONSC 2288 (CanLII), and Daley, R.S.J. in Karwal v. Karwal, 2017 ONSC 5485 (CanLII), and are:
1. while CFAs increase access to justice, they are not a carte blanche to permit lawyers to charge what the agreement states. Fairness and reasonableness must be considered (St. Jean v. Armstrong, 2015 ONSC 13 (CanLII), aff’d 2017 ONCA 145 (CanLII));
2. the CFA must be assessed both in terms of reasonableness and fairness. The fairness of the CFA is to be assessed as of the date of the agreement. The reasonableness of the CFA is to be assessed at the date of the hearing or settlement. A CFA can only be declared void if the court determines that it is either unfair or unreasonable. (Hendricks-Hunter v. 814888 Ont. Inc., 2012 ONCA 496 (CanLII), [2012] O.J. No. 3207 (C.A.);
3. the fairness of a CFA is concerned with the circumstances surrounding the making of the agreement and whether the client fully understood and appreciated the nature of the agreement (Raphel Partners v. Lam, 2002 CanLII 45078 (ON CA), [2002] O.J. No. 3605 (C.A.));
4. a solicitor seeking to collect fees under a CFA with a party under disability must comply with section 5 (1) of Ontario Regulation 195/04 under the Solicitors Act which provides that the solicitor shall either apply to a judge for approval of the CFA before it is finalized or include the agreement as part of the motion or application for approval of a settlement under Rule 7.08;
5. when assessing the reasonableness of fees charged by the solicitor, the court should consider a number of factors including the time expended by the semester, the legal and factual complexity of the matter, the results achieved, and the risk assumed by the solicitor (Raphel Partners, supra); and
6. if the CFA violates Section 28.1(8) of the Solicitors Act, or is not approved, the agreement is not enforceable (Hodge v. Neinstein, 2015 ONSC 7345 (CanLII), 2015 ONSC 7345 (Div. Ct.), although under appeal).