Reshma M. Douhlani Client v. Faith E. Hayman Law Corporation, 2015 BCSC 2555

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Douhlani v. Faith E. Hayman Law Corporation, 2015 BCSC 2555 Date: 20150626 Docket: S163479 Registry: New Westminster Between: Reshma M. Douhlani Client And Faith E. Hayman Law Corporation Solicitor Before: Registrar Nielsen Oral Reasons for Decision In Chambers Appearing on her own behalf: R.M. Douhlani Appearing on their own behalf: Faith E. Hayman Law Corporation Place and Date of Hearing: New Westminster, B.C. June 26, 2015 Place and Date of Decision: New Westminster, B.C.

June 26, 2015 [ 1 ] This is an application pursuant to the provisions of the Legal Profession Act , S.B.C. 1998, c. 9 to review two disbursement accounts of the lawyer which total $15,632.52, inclusive of taxes. [ 2 ] The lawyer acted for the client in an action against Manulife involving a claim for the payment of long-term disability and damages for mental stress and punitive damages. [ 3 ] The Manulife action involved a claim for the LTD benefits, which had been terminated back in 2003. The lawyer was initially retained in 2012. At that time, the client had been without representation for several years.

There had been some unsuccessful attempts by the client to set the matter down for trial and

schedule a judicial settlement conference. She had also brought an application for default judgment and another application for

summary judgment, which was heard by Madam Justice Ker and dismissed. [ 4 ] The lawyer had some hesitation in initially acting for the client and that was expressed by her in an email and also a letter. The concern originated from what was perceived to be the client’s unreasonable expectations with respect to the litigation. [ 5 ] In May of 2013, the lawyer’s firm booked a 10-day trial in the Manulife action, which was to commence on November 17, 2014. As the trial date approached, the lawyer sought instructions to settle and to have reasonable parameters to engage in that discussion.

At that time, a disbursement account was sent to the client, which went unpaid. The lawyer’s view was that the client did not provide reasonable settlement instructions that were required, and consequently, the lawyer felt obliged to withdraw as counsel. That was done in August of 2014. [ 6 ] On September 9, 2014, another account was rendered. On September 22, 2014, the lawyer learned that the client had in fact settled the claim with Manulife and the settlement funds had been paid out to her.

In September 2014, the lawyer’s firm rendered another account for services pursuant to the Contingency Fee Agreement. [ 7 ] A pre-hearing conference took place in front of Registrar Cameron on March 19, 2015, and a number of orders were made concerning particulars and the provision of accounting records.

At that time, Registrar Cameron noted in his order that the lawyer had abandoned any claim for legal fees. [ 8 ] The client attended the lawyer’s office and reviewed the bills, but apparently was upset that the file did not contain cleared cheques, and she either left or was invited to leave the lawyer’s offices. [ 9 ] The client has been provided with copies of the cleared cheques which the lawyer had in their possession and that appears in the affidavit material of Jenny Ho, sworn June 3, 2015.

[ 10 ] As of today’s date, the client has not made any payments on the disbursement accounts rendered by the lawyer’s firm. [ 11 ] The lawyer has indicated, and I would agree, that the client is actually experienced in litigation matters. She has been involved in a number of cases in the past, and there have been at least two prior occasions where, after her lawyers had withdrawn, she settled directly with the opposing party, avoiding the payment of fees. [ 12 ] The legal principles involved in an assessment of this nature are set out at s. 71 of the Legal Professions Act , which I am not going to quote in total, but I will quote for the benefit of the client s. 71(2) that provides:

(2) Subject to subsections (4) and (5), the registrar must allow fees, charges and disbursements for the following services: (

a) those reasonably necessary and proper to conduct the proceeding or business to which they relate; (

b) those authorized by the client or subsequently approved by the client, whether or not the services were reasonably necessary and proper to conduct the proceeding or business to which they relate. [ 13 ] The term “charges” that is used in s. 71 is a defined term in s. 64.

The definition of charges in s. 64 reads: "Charges" includes taxes on fees and disbursements and interest on fees and disbursements. [ 14 ] The bulk of the disbursements claimed consist of disbursements which would have been the essential building blocks of a successful claim against the insurer, Manulife. [ 15 ] In my view, the disbursements are all wholly appropriate.

They were reasonable, necessary, and proper within the context of the claim, and I have no doubt that thanks to the services of the lawyer in putting together those building blocks, they served the client well in ultimately being able to settle the case directly with Manulife on her own. [ 16 ] In the circumstances, I am going to allow the disbursements, as presented, in total for the $15,632.52. [ 17 ] Pursuant to s. 73 of the Legal Profession Act , I am awarding the lawyer the costs of today’s hearing and I summarily assess those pursuant to s. 73(2)(

b) at $500.00, inclusive of disbursements. [ 18 ] There was no provision made for interest in the Fee Agreement and therefore interest is awarded at the rate set by the Court Order Interest Act , R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 79. Pursuant to s. 73(3) of the Legal Profession Act , that interest is to run on the first bill from June 10, 2014 to today’s date, and on the second bill from September 9, 2014 to today’s date. [ 19 ] A Certificate may be submitted to the Registry for my signature. Ms. Douhlani’s approval as to form is dispensed with. Ms.

Hayman, when you submit the Certificate, please submit it together with it the interest calculation for my review. [ 20 ] RESHMA DOUHALNI: Your Honour, I have a question. I had sent couple of emails to her before the – she withdrew that I am unable to pay her disbursements right now. Let’s settle. She wouldn’t reply what the amount she is getting is. All these emails I have sent to Ms. Hayman she wouldn’t bother for that which is all in the binder of this – [ 21 ] THE COURT: All right.

Well, I am not in a position to address that right now. [ 22 ] RESHMA DOUHALNI: No, no, I understand that. [ 23 ] THE COURT: All right. [ 24 ] RESHMA DOUHALNI: Another question of mine is why is Master Cameron on before deadline? (Indiscernible) if I wasn’t (indiscernible) immediately the judgment would be given. We are not considered. She couldn’t provide me before the deadline as the court ordered. So now she has come not also.

I took the (indiscernible) and this when I said on May 26 if you see on my binder I came and the Registrar said I kept asking in so many emails when are you available, when are you available. She wouldn’t reply and then they put May 26 for me stamped also and then they say “Oh, she has already booked it but just ten” (indiscernible) – [ 25 ] THE COURT: Okay. Ms. Douhlani, what you are doing is you are rearguing your case now. [ 26 ] RESHMA DOUHALNI: No, I am not rearguing the case. I’m just saying – [ 27 ] THE COURT: All right, but I – [ 28 ] RESHMA DOUHALNI: -- I’m just an ordinary person.

I don’t know anything about this. [ 29 ] THE COURT: I understand, but I have made my decision. I have heard the evidence and I have made my decision. We are adjourned. “District Registrar Nielsen”