Ontario civil | Civil Practice and Procedure | Costs | Security for costs
Law firm represented clients in four separate matters, rendering accounts for legal fees and disbursements totaling $221,454. When clients paid only $36,563, law firm brought action to recover outstanding amount. Trial judge found time expended by law firm had been reasonable and necessary, matters had been complex and important to clients, and clients had obtained value for work performed. Judge approved accounts without deduction, ordering clients to pay $184,891 plus interest of $2,963.40 and costs of $60,000. Clients appealed on basis judge had failed to resolve contradictory evidence on key issues and to pay due regard to evidence and submissions of counsel, particularly in regard to oppression matter that had accounted for $160,000 of accounts rendered. Law firm brought motion pursuant to R. 61.06(1)(a) of Rules of Civil Procedure for order requiring clients to post security for costs. Motion granted. Individual client's statements that his finances were strained and that he would be unable to pay legal costs until certain properties were sold, numerous encumbrances on clients' properties and numerous judgments and writs filed against clients demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt clients had taken many steps to render themselves judgment proof and did not have readily exigible assets with which to pay costs. Clients' complaints in relation to oppression matter were really complaints as to how various matters should have been handled differently. Trial judge had, however, made it clear case was not about solicitor's negligence, that it was not her job to determine whether law firm's advice had been best advice in circumstances. She had properly considered relevant factors such as results achieved, skill of lawyers involved and reasonableness of costs incurred without improperly expanding scope of review into more detailed analysis of counsel's conduct as would be required in negligence case. There was good reason to believe appeal, which really only challenged findings of fact and credibility, without raising any arguable error of law, had no merit. Order requiring clients to post security for costs was justified under R. 61.06(1)(a). Order was also justified under R. 61.06(1)(c) on basis of clients' previous conduct suggesting it would be difficult to collect costs. Clients were ordered to post security for costs in amount of $80,000, $60,000 for judgment under appeal and $20,000 for appeal, failing which appeal would be dismissed.
Groia & Company Professional Corporation v. Cardillo (2019), 2019 CarswellOnt 3519, 2019 ONCA 165, P. Lauwers J.A. (Ont. C.A.).
