Pre-hearing request to review law firm's fees in personal injury case is premature: BC Supreme Court

The court further stated that it lacked the jurisdiction to compel the law firm to produce a bill under these circumstances.

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.

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.