2017 QCCQ 6210, 2017 QCCQ 6210

Ebrahim, Macleod c. Becket 2017 QCCQ 6210 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-150537-159 DATE: June 2, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JEFFREY EDWARDS, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ EBRAHIM, MACLEOD S.E.N.C. Plaintiff v.

SONIA BECKET Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Plaintiff law firm Ebrahim, Macleod s.e.n.c. ( Ebrahim, Macleod ) is suing defendant Sonia Becket for unpaid professional attorney fees in the amount of $5,691.97. Sonia Becket contests the amounts charged by Me Katherine Macleod. She also states that Me Macleod has not given her full credit for amounts paid. Questions in Issue 1. What amounts have been paid to Ebrahim, Macleod by Sonia Becket? 2.

What are fair and reasonable charges for the services rendered? Context [ 2 ] On or around November 9, 2012, Ms. Becket retained the services of Ebrahim, Macleod, and in particular those of Me Katherine Macleod. Me Macleod was mandated to represent Ms. Becket in two matters before the Courts, one involving supervised visits of her children pending before the Court of Quebec (Youth Division) and the other regarding a request to increase access rights before the Superior Court (Family Division). [ 3 ] The mandate continued until July 2014 and therefore for a period of approximately 1 year and nine months.

However, over the bulk of that period, the legal representation of Ms. Becket was paid by Legal Aid. The Legal Aid Mandate for the Youth Court matter was issued on April 12, 2013 [1] . The Legal Aid Mandate for the Superior Court matter was issued on July 9, 2013 [2] . [ 4 ] Two invoices are in issue in the present matter. The first is dated January 3, 2013 in the amount of $3,389.45 [3] . The second is dated January 24, 2013 in the amount of $2,802.52 [4] . These invoices were therefore sent before the issuance of the government legal

aid certificates. [ 5 ] On January 24, 2013, after receipt of a further payment of $500, Me Macleod issued a statement of account [5] indicating a balance of $5,691.97. [ 6 ] Despite the fact that these amounts went unpaid, Me Macleod continued to represent Ms. Becket. On May 24, June 7, June 21, November 26, 2013 and on May 27 and June 30, 2014 [6] , Me Macleod sent Ms. Becket reminders about these unpaid invoices. [ 7 ] These reminders were ignored by Ms. Becket. There is no evidence in the file that Ms.

Becket ever replied or provided any written objection regarding the items or charges. [ 8 ] On December 29, 2015, Me Macleod filed the present proceedings. The defence filed by Ms. Becket does not provide details as to specific points of contestation with respect to the amounts charged. [ 9 ] This matter was first scheduled for trial on December 19, 2016. As Ms. Becket did not appear, Me Macleod’s demand proceeded by default and judgment was rendered on January 26, 2017 [7] . [ 10 ] On February 20, 2017, Ms.

Becket filed an Application for Revocation against that judgment on the basis that she had not received the Notice of Hearing. On February 27, 2017, that application was granted. The parties were thereafter summoned to appear for a new hearing before the undersigned. [ 11 ] In light of the evidence, the revocation of the previous judgment was confirmed. The Court proceeded to hear the merits of Ebrahim, Macleod’s judicial demand and Ms. Becket’s contestation. Analysis and Decision 1. What Amounts Have Been Paid to Ebrahim, Macleod by Sonia Becket? [ 12 ] Ms.

Becket files copies of the front side of the following cheques of payment made to Ebrahim, Macleod [8] : November 13, 2012 $1,000 December 7, 2012 $1,000 January 19, 2013 $500 February 2, 2013 $500 March 14, 2013 $500 Total: $3,500 [ 13 ] The Ebrahim, Macleod statements show that Sonia Becket was given a credit for only $2,500 in payments. Ms. Becket therefore asks for an additional credit of $1,000 relative to Ebrahim, Macleod’s claim.

[ 14 ] Given the preponderance of the proof of payments of $3,500, the Court accepts that submission and will apply an additional $1,000 credit to the amount owed. 2. What Are Fair and Reasonable Charges for the Services Rendered? [ 15 ] The Courts normally follow the criteria set out at

Article 102 of the Code of Professional Conduct of Lawyers [9] to determine the fair and reasonable nature or not of legal fees charged. The

article reads as follows: 102. The fees are fair and reasonable if they are warranted by the circumstances and proportionate to the professional services rendered.

In determining his fees, the lawyer must in particular take the following factors into account: (1) experience; (2) the time and effort required and devoted to the matter; (3) the difficulty of the matter; (4) the importance of the matter to the client; (5) the responsibility assumed; (6) the performance of unusual professional services or professional services requiring special skills or exceptional speed; (7) the result obtained; (8) the fees prescribed by statute or regulation; and (9) the disbursements, fees, commissions, rebates, costs or other benefits that are or will be paid by a third party with respect to the mandate the client gave him. [ 16 ] In light of the amounts charged, the Court will review each of these criteria.

At the same time, the Court will review, when applicable, the amounts charged by the articling student (stagiaire) hired by Ebrahim, Macleod and the amount attributed to her services ($1,125).

(1) Experience

[ 17 ] Me Macleod has 35 years of experience in the family law area. Her level of experience is therefore high. Her hourly rate of $250 is very reasonable in light of that experience. Ms. Becket raised no issue regarding the hourly rate charged. [ 18 ] However, the Court finds that the hourly rate charged by Me Macleod’s stagiaire, at $130 to be high. There was no explanation given as to why such a high rate was charged in relation to the rate of the senior attorney. The Court will therefore reduce that rate to $75.

The amount charged for the articling student is therefore reduced from $1,193.47 with taxes (7.5 hours x $125) to $645.47 with taxes (7.5 x $75 = $562.50). Accordingly, the first invoice will be reduced by $548 ($1,193.47 - $645.47).

(2) Time and Effort Required and Devoted to the Matter [ 19 ] This was the principal ground of contestation presented by Ms. Becket at the hearing. She states that the charges are exaggerated, do not reflect the real time spent and did not always conform to her instructions. [ 20 ] With all due respect, the Court finds that these criticisms are generally without merit. At the time of the hearing of this matter, it is now almost 4 and half years after the invoices in question were issued. There is no proof of any previous detailed or even general criticism on these invoices before the trial.

In general, it is not credible at this stage to state and contest the amount of hours spent at Court. The invoices are very detailed and Ebrahim, Macleod stands by the time charged. [ 21 ] Nevertheless, according to the evidence, Ms. Becket has convinced the Court that certain time charged for review and preparation was superfluous and not justified, in particular, the time entries at Exhibit P-2 (Invoice January 24, 2013 for time entries of 17/01/13, 18/01/13, 21/01/13, totaling 5 hours and 45 minutes). The Court will reduce that time by 2 and half hours, leaving 3 hours and 15 minutes.

Accordingly, the Court will reduce the amounts charged by $625 ($250 x 2.5) being $662.34, with taxes ($92.19).

(3) Difficulty of the Matter [ 22 ] The issues involved custody and access to children, which are always difficult and a specialized area of practice. The charges made are reasonable in that regard.

(4) Importance of the Matter to the Client [ 23 ] As the mandates involve Ms. Becket’s children, the matter was extremely important to the client. The charges are reasonable in that regard.

(5) Responsibility Assumed [ 24 ] The responsibility was important and the charges are reasonable in that regard.

(6) Performance of Unusual Professional Services or Professional Services Requiring Special Skills or Exceptional Speed [ 25 ] The file involved custody issues regarding children and that is a family law speciality. The charges are reasonable in that regard.

(7) Result Obtained [ 26 ] Regarding the invoice of January 3, 2013, Ms. Becket states that she was not satisfied with the services and Me Macleod did not act as instructed. Ms. Becket is not credible on this point. This was at the very beginning of the professional relationship of the parties. If Ms. Becket was of the view that Me Macleod did not follow her instructions or was otherwise dissatisfied with her representation, Ms. Becket would not have continued with Me Macleod as her attorney for another year and a half after that point. [ 27 ] Regarding the invoice of January 24, 2013, Ms.

Becket was extremely satisfied with Me Macleod’s services. In an e-mail [10] of Ms. Becket to Me Macleod on January 22, 2013, immediately after the services described in the invoice of January 24, 2013, were rendered, Ms. Becket wrote in part: “And thank you Me. Heyeur most of all for referring me to Me. MacLeod. I am absolutely delighted to be working with her. Me. MacLeod is truly dedicating phenomenal energy and focus to fix the terrible situation that me and Kiki are finding ourselves in. Thank you so much Me. Heyeur and Me. MacLeod, I love you both.” The two final criteria mentioned in this

article do not apply to the mandates in issue. [ 28 ] The Court will therefore reduce the amount charged by $1,210.34 ($548 + $662.34) and apply the outstanding credit of $1000 owed to Ms. Becket resulting in a total reduction of $2,210.34. Accordingly, the revised invoiced amount is $3,481.63. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: CONDEMNS Sonia Becket to pay Ebrahim, Macleod s.e.n.c. the amount of $3,481.63 with legal interest of 5% per year, plus the additional indemnity provided at

Article 1619 of the Civil Code of Quebec , from the letter of demand (Exhibit P-3), dated June 18, 2015; CONDEMNS Sonia Becket to pay Ebrahim, Macleod s.e.n.c. the legal costs (Court Stamp) of $171. __________________________________ Jeffrey Edwards, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: May 29, 2017