• It had been commonly accepted that Ontario was the only Canadian jurisdiction where contingency fee agreements were prohibited in litigation (other than in class proceedings).
• In September 2000, a Committee comprising representatives from the Ontario Bar Association, the Law Society of Upper Canada and the Advocates Society submitted a Report on Contingency Fees to MAG. The Report recommended that contingency fees be permitted, subject to a number of regulations, to improve access to justice.
• In addition to producing the report, the Committee commissioned an Environics poll to measure the level of public support for contingency fees. The survey found that 70% of respondents agreed that the Ontario government should allow people to hire lawyers on a contingency fee basis.
• On September 10, 2002, the Ontario Court of Appeal rendered its judgment in McIntyre v. A.G. of Ontario. The court held that contingency fee agreements are not necessarily illegal; a court would have to inquire whether the lawyer had an improper motive in entering into the contingency fee agreement. It held that, in assessing the lawyer's motive, the court should consider whether the contingency fee is fair and reasonable.
• On September 24, 2002, the Ontario Court of Appeal rendered its judgment in Raphael Partners v. Chester Lam. The court overturned the lower court and assessment officer's determination that the contingency fee was excessive, and upheld as "fair and reasonable" a contingency fee agreement for 15% of first million and 10% of each subsequent million in damages, plus costs, amounting to $461,313 plus GST on a $2.5M settlement.

Back ·  Table of Contents ·  Next