Quon v. Kosh & Company Date:, 2013 BCPC 265

Citation: Quon v. Kosh & Company Date: 20130802 2013 BCPC 0265 File No: 13-43296 Registry: Vancouver IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN: HENRY H. QUON CLAIMANT AND: KHOSH & COMPANY CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT INC. DEFENDANT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF HIS WORSHIP L.A. KAHN Appearing in person: Henry Quon Appearing for the Defendant: Laura Starcevic Place of Hearing: Vancouver , B.C. Date of Hearing: July 10, 2013

Date of Judgment: August 2, 2013 [ 1 ] This is a claim by Henry H. Quon (“Mr. Quon”) against Khosh & Company Chartered Accountant Inc. (“Khosh & Company”) for the return of the balance of his retainer of $852.29, together with the costs of a company search ($11.68), filing fees ($100) and service fees ($20) for a total payment of $983.97. [ 2 ] Mr. Quon appeared in person and filed a Trial Statement. Ms. Laura Starcevic (“Ms. Starcevic”) appeared on behalf of the Defendant. Although she did not prepare the Defendant’s Trial Statement, Ms. Starcevic was familiar with the facts.

She confirmed that the contents of the Trial Statement were true and accurate to the best of her knowledge. [ 3 ] On April 23, 2012, Mr. Quon made an appointment at approximately 2 pm to meet with Mr. Nabil Khoshkhesal (“Mr. Khoshkhesal”) at 4 pm with respect to the preparation of his 2011 tax return. [ 4 ] Mr. Quon says that he and Mr. Khoshkhesal discussed about the timing of the preparation of his tax return, and Mr. Khoshkhesal explained that he required a signed engagement letter and retainer of $1,000 to provide an estimate for the cost of professional services to prepare his tax return. [ 5 ] Mr.

Quon signed the engagement letter and provided the retainer. [ 6 ] Thereafter, Mr. Khoshkhesal and Mr. Quon had a half-hour discussion about his tax circumstances. [ 7 ] At about 7 pm on April 23, 2013, Mr. Khoshkhesal and Mr. Quon had a telephone conversation. Mr. Quon was quoted fees between $3,500 to $5,000. Mr. Quon said that he would think about whether or not he wishes to have Mr. Khoshkhesal prepare his tax return. [ 8 ] At about 8:30 pm, Mr. Khoshkhesal and Mr. Quon had a further telephone conversation. Mr. Quon advised Mr. Khoshkhesal that he did not wish Mr. Khoshkhesal to proceed. According to Mr.

Quon, Mr. Khoshkhesal indicated that he had incurred time and he would be issuing a bill for approximately $800. [ 9 ] That bill was dated April 23, 2012 and is reproduced below. Date Emp Description 23/04/2012 NKC Draft engagement letter, print 2 copies, sign and prepare for meeting with same. 0.3 hour(s) $82.50 23/04/2012 NKC Prepare new client file, soft copy and hard copy. 0.2 hour(s) $35.00 23/04/2012 NKC 2 nd discussion with Donna Gallagher on alternatives and related additional information required; call and leave message for Mr.

Quon 0.3 hour(s) $82.50 23/04/2012 JH CA TAX SPECIALIST – Discussion with Nabil re: Mr. Henry Quan (sic) rental property disposition. 0.3 hour(s) $82.50 23/04/2012 NKC Discussion with CA Tax Specialist on general case facts, timeline and how to proceed. 0.3 hour(s) $82.50 23/04/2012 NKC Meeting with Mr.

Quon respecting disposition of building and related facts and 2011 income tax return and related issues; discuss how to proceed. 4 pm – 5:10 pm 1.2 hour(s) $330.00 23/04/2012 DG Two telephone discussions with Nabil Re: Disposition of property and related issues. 0.3 hour(s) $52.50 23/04/2012 NKC 2 telephone discussions with Mr.

Quan (sic) on alternatives. 0.3 hour(s) $82.50 OUR FEE $830.00 Taxable disbursements Photocopies $6.00 $6.00 Courtesy Discount -$82.50 SUB-TOTAL (Before Admin and HST) $753.50 Administration fee (7%) $52.74 Harmonized Sales Tax (12%) $96.05 TOTAL $902.29 Retainer received -$1,000.00 REFUND DUE TO YOU -$97.71 [ 10 ] The issue is whether or not Khosh & Company was entitled to charge Mr. Quon prior to his confirmation to proceed with the preparation of his tax return. [ 11 ] I asked Ms.

Starcevic if there are any guidelines from the Institute of Chartered Accountants with respect to bills rendered by chartered accountants. She indicated there were guidelines. I requested that she send a copy of those to me through the Court Registry. As of the date of this Judgment, I had not received any information from Ms. Starcevic.

[ 12 ] I briefly reviewed the Rules of Professional Conduct of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia. Under Rule 214, a chartered accountant “shall not quote a fee for any professional engagement unless adequate information has been obtained about the engagement”. The information gathered by Khosh & Company is required to carry out their professional responsibility. [ 13 ] However, I have no guidance on how to assess the fairness of the bill and of any criteria established by the Institute of Chartered Accountants. By contrast, lawyers are governed by the Legal Profession Act . Section 71(4) says, as follows:

(4) At a review of a lawyer’s bill, the registrar must consider all of the circumstances, including:

a) the complexity, difficulty or novelty of the issues involved,

b) the skill, specialized knowledge and responsibility required of the lawyer,

c) the lawyer’s character and standing in the profession,

d) the amount involved,

e) the time reasonably spent,

f) if there has been an agreement that sets a fee rate that is based on an amount per unit of time spent by the lawyer, whether the rate was reasonable,

g) the importance of the matter to the client whose bill is being reviewed, and

h) the result obtained. [ 14 ] Using the criteria set out under the Legal Profession Act as an objective guideline, I note the following with respect to Khosh & Company’s bill:

a) Mr. Quon was charged for preparatory work in advance of his meeting at Khosh & Company.

b) Mr. Quon was charged for telephone discussions concerning fee quotations, which is how I interpret the last two entries of the bill.

c) It is unreasonable for Mr. Quon to meet with Mr. Khoshkhesal without any expectation of being charged any fees. However, in my opinion, none of the charges that appear on the bill prior to the entry for the meeting with Mr. Quon should have been charged. Prior to the meeting, Mr. Quon would not have known about the fees, nor could he have expected that he would be charged.

d) Particularly troubling are the fees that were ascribed to the drafting of engagement letter, preparing the new client file, and the internal office charges of the accountants or other professionals at Khosh & Company.

e) Mr. Quon’s evidence and the bill confirm that the meeting was slightly over an hour.

f) In my opinion, a fee for part of the conference between Mr. Quon and Mr. Khoshkhesal is reasonable. [ 15 ] I will reduce Khosh & Company’s bill to $250, plus HST, for a total of $280. As well, I am not prepared to allow the photocopying or administration fee. [ 16 ] Therefore, Mr. Quon is entitled to judgment for $622.29, calculated as follows: Retainer: $1,000.00 Less: Bill allowed ( $280.00) Less: Refunded to Mr. Quon ($97.71) $622.29 [ 17 ] Mr. Quon is entitled to the disbursement for the company search of $11.68, filing fees of $100, service fees of $20, for a total judgment of $753.97. [ 18 ] Mr.

Quon is entitled to pre-judgment interest to be calculated by the Court Registry from April 23, 2012 to the date of this Judgment. __________________________ Lawrence A. Kahn Adjudicator