The registrar also lacks the power to order a firm to deliver an account before the case concluded
The Supreme Court of British Columbia ruled that a client’s fee review request in a personal injury case was premature, as no final bill was issued and the registrar lacked jurisdiction before the case concluded.
The legal dispute in Skidders v Hartshorne, 2024 BCSC 1924 was between a client, Kenniiohontaah Skidders, and the law firm Hartshorne & Mehl. The disagreement centred on a contingency fee agreement (CFA) and related disbursements incurred by the firm while representing the client in a personal injury lawsuit. Skidders sought a review of the firm's fees and actions, but the court found the attempt to be premature and outside the registrar’s jurisdiction.
Skidders initially retained Hartshorne & Mehl in 2018 to pursue damages for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The CFA stipulated that legal fees would only be payable upon achieving a favourable outcome in the case. However, in 2021, the solicitor-client relationship ended after the departure of Mark Carter, the lawyer handling Skidders’ file. Carter joined another firm, DuMoulin Boskovich LLP, where he continued representing Skidders.
In early 2024, Skidders filed an appointment under the Legal Profession Act (LPA), seeking a review of Hartshorne & Mehl’s legal fees and disbursements. She requested the law firm confirm whether it terminated the CFA and provide an itemized account of services rendered, including detailed time records and hourly rates. The firm objected, arguing that since the case had not concluded, the appointment was premature. It also claimed that the registrar lacked jurisdiction to order the firm to prepare an account of legal fees.
At a pre-hearing conference, the registrar sided with the law firm, citing the LPA and related procedural rules. The Supreme Court noted that a review of fees under s. 70 of the LPA requires a bill to be issued. Since no final bill had been delivered, the appointment did not comply with the statutory requirements. The registrar held that without the contingent event—resolution of the client’s case—any fee review request was premature.
The court further stated that it lacked the jurisdiction to compel the law firm to produce a bill under these circumstances. The registrar’s limited powers under the LPA and the Supreme Court Civil Rules do not include ordering a firm to deliver an account for review before the case concludes.
Finally, the court found that the limitation periods to review the CFA and disbursement bill had expired. Without a court order to extend the time limit, any attempt to review these issues would be invalid.
