2023 ONSC 3573, 2023 ONSC 3573

CITATION : Yepes v. Tapia et al., 2023 ONSC 3573 COURT FILE NO.: 771/15 DATE: 2023/06/14 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: CHRISTHIAN YEPES, Plaintiff AND: ALEJANDRO TAPIA [1] , also known as STEVEN TAPIA, and THE THAMES VALLEY DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD, Defendants BEFORE: Justice I.F. Leach COUNSEL: Adam Birch, for the Plaintiff Malcolm B.

Scott, for the remaining Defendant, The Thames Valley District School Board HEARD: In writing ENDORSEMENT [ 1 ] This supplemental endorsement addresses further steps taken in response to my earlier endorsement in this matter, released to the parties on June 13, 2023; i.e., Yepes v. Tapia et al. , 2023 ONSC 3541 .

It should be read together with that earlier endorsement. [ 2 ] In accordance with that earlier decision and the judicial directions set out therein, current counsel for the defendant TVDSB now has supplied me, in confidence, (i.e., without simultaneous disclosure to opposing counsel), with copies of legal account documentation rendered to the TVDSB by its previous lawyer David Miller in relation to this matter. [ 3 ] In that regard, I note for the record that only one legal account was provided to me.

It clearly covers the month of April, 2015, as contemplated/required, but necessarily includes docket entries extending beyond that month; i.e., insofar as it includes docket entries before and after that month that also factored into the total fees and expenses charged to Mr Miller’s client via that account. [ 4 ] In the result, it seems that I effectively have been provided with the docket entries made by Mr Miller in relation to this matter for the period from January 21, 2015, until July 24, 2015, inclusive. [ 5 ] Having reviewed that material, I indicate and confirm the following: a.

Each docket entry therein includes corresponding information about the date on which the entry was made, the timekeeper involved, (e.g., “DMM” for David M. Miller), a brief “narrative” describing the relevant task performed, the units of time devoted to the task, (in decimalized tenths of an hour), an indication of the applicable hourly rate at which the timekeeper was performing the described task, and the corresponding amount of the fee or expense being charged in relation to the docketed and described task. b.

The “narrative” for docket entries indicating and relating to telephone conversations Mr Miller had in relation to this matter each include an indication of “TELEPHONE ATTENDANCE”, along with an indication of whom the telephone conversation was “WITH”, as well as a brief “RE” indication of the subject discussed during the telephone conversation. c. There were a number of such “TELEPHONE ATTENDANCE” docket entries made by Mr Miller during the month of April, 2015.

However, there are no such entries indicating a telephone attendance/conversation “WITH” Mr Millar during the month of April, 2015, whether before, on or after April 9, 2015. In that regard, I think it appropriate to note the existence of other indications in the provided docket entries that assist with the

interpretation of the docket entries made by Mr Miller during the month of April, 2015. In particular: i. Mr Millar is not mentioned by name in the docket entries made by Mr Miller. It seems that Miller instead used the indications “OTHER LAWYER” or “SOLICITOR” when making a docket entry relating to preparation of correspondence sent “TO” opposing counsel, or a telephone attendance/conversation “WITH” opposing counsel.

During the month of April, 2015, (which was the focus of the motion before me, and therefore of the relief I granted), there is no docket entry with a narrative indicating “TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH OTHER LAWYER” or “TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH SOLICITOR”. ii. When Mr Miller docketed a telephone attendance/conversation with his client, that was made clear in the noted “WITH” indication of the docket entry’s narrative; i.e., by an indication of “WITH CLIENT”.

I think it more than reasonable to infer that Mr Millar self-evidently would not have participated in any telephone attendance/conversation between Mr Miller and his client; i.e., the TVDSB. iii.

All docket entries made by Mr Miller in April of 2015 with a narrative referring to a “TELEPHONE ATTENDANCE” also indicate that the relevant telephone attendance/conversation was “WITH CLIENT”. [ 6 ] In accordance with my earlier decision, and the directions provided therein to the London judicial secretaries and court staff, the legal account material provided to me in confidence by current counsel for the TVDSB has not been uploaded to the court’s electronic Sharepoint file, nor to Caselines.

[ 7 ] My review of that material having been completed, it will now be destroyed/deleted. “Justice I.F. Leach” Justice I.F. Leach Date: June 14, 2023