ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Estate Planning Blogs -> Toronto Estate Law Blog

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Estate Planning

: Toronto Estate Law Blog

Cost Recovery for In House Counsel

By Hull & Hull LLP

ADVERTISEMENTS

The recent decision of Grand & Toy v. Aviva Canada discussed whether a party, represented by salaried in-house counsel, could recover costs and, if so, to what extent. 

Aviva Canada had been successful in responding to a motion and was seeking the associated costs from Grand & Toy.  It had calculated the fees on the basis of $350 for the senior counsel on the file and $175 for the junior counsel. 

Grand & Toy took the position that as Aviva had been represented by its salaried, in-house counsel, to the extent a cost order was made, it should be on the basis of the actual costs incurred by the successful party – and this would involve Aviva disclosing the salaries of the in-house counsel, so a proper determination of actual cost could be made. 

The court rejected the argument that because in-house counsel was used, the type of cost order available was limited and pointed to s. 36 of the Solicitors Act, which provides that costs cannot be disallowed or reduced merely because the counsel involved are salaried employees of the party.  It found that in the circumstances it could not simply reduce a cost order that otherwise would have been made. 

Turning to the issue of quantum of fees, the court found that it should consider the factors enumerated in R. 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure('Cost of Proceedings – General Principles') and fix an amount that was fair and reasonable to the unsuccessful litigant (rather than that merely reflects the costs of the successful party). 

In this situation, the court determined that the hourly rates charged by counsel were too high given the complexity of the matter; that the time spent on some steps was excessive; and that one, rather than two, counsel from Aviva was all that was reasonably required for the hearing.  Accordingly, it awarded costs at a lesser amount than claimed. 

Have a great day!

Megan F. Connolly  

Full post as published by Toronto Estate Law Blog on January 27, 2010 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0128 secs (new cache)