Client Update: A judge’s guide to settlement approval and contingency fee agreements in P.E.I.
In Wood v. Wood et al, 2013 PESC 11, a motion pursuant to Rule 7.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for court approval of a settlement involving a minor, Mr. Justice John K. Mitchell approved the settlement among the parties and in so doing, released reasons which included general comments on motions made pursuant to Rule 7.08 and contingency fee agreements. In Justice Mitchell’s words, the reasons “may serve as a guide to counsel in future cases”.
As Justice Mitchell set out, Rule 7.08 invokes the parens patriae jurisdiction of the court, meaning that it is the duty of the court to protect a person who has a disability (which, by definition, includes minors or those persons who are mentally incompetent or incapable of managing their affairs, whether or not so declared by a court) and to ensure that any settlement involving a party under disability is in the best interests of that party. This involves an examination of the reasonableness of the settlement, as well as an examination of how and to whom funds are to be disbursed.
The onus is on the party seeking approval of the settlement to prove that the settlement is fair, reasonable and in the best interests of the party under disability. Justice Mitchell stated that wise counsel will treat the requirements under Rule 7.08(5) as a bareminimum Generally the moving party should file such additional documentation as the pleadings; medical reports to explain the nature of the injuries and the prognosis; experts’ reports such as rehabilitation and actuarial reports; and any other material relating to any relevant issue to assist the court to conclude whether or not the settlement is in the best interests of the person under disability. He also stated that case law relevant to the quantum of damages in similar cases would be helpful.
Justice Mitchell explained that while it is often the case that a settlement is a global figure, he was not prepared to approve a settlement that did not separate the damages from the defendants’ contribution to the plaintiff’s costs. The contingency percentage charged on a contingency fee agreement should not be applied to costs. According to Justice Mitchell, it is incumbent on the plaintiff’s lawyer to negotiate a separate amount as the defendants’ contribution to the plaintiff’s costs and the contingency percentage would not apply to those costs. If the parties negotiate an all-inclusive settlement, the court should set aside a reasonable amount for costs and not apply the contingency percentage to that amount.
Justice Mitchell also highlighted the importance of clients being made aware of alternative payment options at the outset. A contingency fee arrangement should not be the automatic default arrangement; sometimes it will be in a litigant’s best interests to choose a more traditional fee arrangement. However, when a client does knowingly choose a contingency fee agreement, if the risk is low, the contingency percentage should reflect that fact. Justice Mitchell set out what he considered to be appropriate percentages in a contingency fee agreement as follows:
As a general rule, I should think it would be appropriate to have
a contingency fee agreement of 15-20% to the end of discovery,
20-25% if the matter settles at mediation and 25-30% or 33.3%
if the matter settles during trial or after trial. Contingency percentages above 30-33.3% are not inconceivable but would be rare indeed.
Justice Mitchell further stated that before signing a contingency agreement, litigants need to be made aware of what they are signing and the consequences of that document. It is the lawyer who has the knowledge and experience in litigation and an understanding of the nature of a contingency fee agreement and, therefore, the onus is on the lawyer to ensure that the client signs an agreement that is fair and reasonable. According to the decision, the purpose of contingency fee agreements is not to give lawyers extra fees for those cases where there is little or no risk.
WHAT THIS MEANS FOR YOU
Plaintiffs’ counsel may be more hesitant to agree to global settlement figures following this decision, particularly where court approval will be required. Further, the process for seeking court approval may be more costly. This decision confirms that the court’s role on a motion seeking court approval is one of scrutiny, to ensure the settlement is in the best interest of the minor or person otherwise under disability.
Archive
By Brian Tabor, QC and Colin Piercey Bill 81 and Bill 15, receiving Royal Assent in 2013 and 2014 respectively, are due to take effect this month. On June 30, 2017, amendments to the Builders’…
Read MoreNew Brunswick continues to be a thought leader in the field of regulation of recreational cannabis and provides us with a first look at what the provincial regulation of recreational cannabis might look like. New…
Read MoreRick Dunlop and Richard Jordan In Stewart v. Elk Valley Coal Corporation, 2017 SCC 30, a six-judge majority of the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) confirmed a Tribunal decision which concluded that the dismissal of an…
Read MoreBy Kevin Landry New Brunswick’s Working Group on the Legalization of Cannabis released an interim report on June 20, 2017. It is a huge step forward in the legalization process and the first official look at how legalization…
Read MoreRick Dunlop and Kevin Landry As we explained in The Cannabis Act- Getting into the Weeds, the Cannabis Act introduces a regulatory regime for recreational marijuana in Canada. The regime promises to be complex. The details of legalization will be…
Read MoreOn April 1, 2017, the New Brunswick Lobbyists’ Registration Act was proclaimed into force (the “Act”), requiring active professional consultant or in-house lobbyists to register and file returns with the Office of the Integrity Commissioner of New…
Read MoreJoe Thorne and Jessica Habet How far can an insurer dig into the Plaintiff’s history to defend a claim? And how much information is an insurer entitled to have in order to do so? In English v.…
Read MoreNeil Jacobs, QC, Joe Thorne and Meaghan McCaw The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal recently confirmed that accounting/auditing firms may take on several mandates in respect of companies that may or do become insolvent in Wabush Hotel Limited…
Read MoreJoe Thorne and Brandon Gillespie An independent medical examination (“IME”) is a useful tool for insurers. An IME is an objective assessment of the claimant’s condition for the purpose of evaluating coverage and compensation. Where a…
Read MoreOn June 2, 2017 the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Saadati v. Moorhead, 2017 SCC 28, clarifying the evidence needed to establish mental injury. Neither expert evidence nor a diagnosed psychiatric illness…
Read More