I have blogged about assisted suicide in the past with reference to the Canadian television show Mary Kills People.  The availability of assisted suicide continues to be a subject of public interest as each province deals with the implementation of the outcome of Supreme Court of Canada decision in Carter v. Canada (Attorney General).

As reported by The Globe and Mail, one particular doctor has removed himself from a roster of doctors who will administer assisted deaths because of changes to the physician fee schedule in British Columbia.  Notwithstanding his support for assisted death, Dr. Jesse Pewarchuk of Vancouver Island wrote a letter to his colleagues to explain that the new fee schedule made “medical assistance in dying” economically untenable for his practice.

According to Kelly Grant of the Globe and Mail,

“Under the new fee schedule, B.C. physicians will now be paid $40 for every 15 minutes, up to a maximum of 90 minutes, to conduct the first of two eligibility assessments required by law. Each of the assessments has to be provided by a different clinician. That works out to $240, a significant increase from the $100.25 interim assessment fee that has been in place in B.C. since shortly after assisted death became legal.

For second assessments, the time is capped at 75 minutes.

In the case of providing an assisted death, the province has set a flat fee of $200, plus a home-visit fee of $113.15.”

Within the same article, it was reported that Ontario does not have specific billing codes for this type of medical service at this present time.

Thanks for reading.

Doreen So

Listen to The Question of Compensation and Complaints.

This week on Hull on Estates and Succession Planning, Ian and Suzana discuss the question of compensation and complaints regarding compensation.

Comments? Send us an email at hullandhull@gmail.com, call us on the comment line at 206-457-1985, or leave us a comment on the Hull on Estate and Succession Planning blog.

Listen to Cases for Increasing and Decreasing Compensation.

This week on Hull on Estates and Succession Planning, Ian and Suzana discuss cases for increasing and decreasing compensation.

Comments? Send us an email at hullandhull@gmail.com, call us on the comment line at 206-457-1985, or leave us a comment on the Hull on Estate and Succession Planning blog.

Recently, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice struck down an arbitration clause in a retainer agreement.

In Jean Estate v. Wires Jolley LLP 2008 CanLII 14538, an estate trustee and sole beneficiary of an estate entered into a retainer agreement with counsel that provided for a “success fee” of 10% of the value of the estate. The retainer agreement also provided that any dispute relating to the success fee was to be determined by an arbitrator. 

A dispute arose, and the solicitors sought to have the dispute resolved through arbitration. The client applied to the court to have the notice of arbitration struck out, and to have the dispute resolved by the court.

Madam Justice Low granted the application. She held that the provisions of the Solicitors Act applied prima facie. She went on to conclude that even though the parties had previously agreed to an arbitration provision, and could agree to keep private commercial disputes private, the relationship between lawyers and clients is “one which transcends a mere commercial transaction. The profession has a monopoly over the provision of legal services and the occasions upon which lawyers interact with members of the public occur often when the latter are in the most vulnerable of circumstances. There is therefore an overarching public interest to be served in the court’s supervision of the profession’s monopoly.”

As the arbitration provision was a derogation of the client’s statutory right to have the court scrutinize the propriety of the fees, it was not upheld.

Thank you for reading.

Paul Trudelle

Listen to Compensation for work done by estate trustees and solicitors.

This week on Hull on Estates, Paul Trudelle and Diane Vieira discuss compensation for work done by estate trustees and estate solicitors.

Case citation:

Rooney Estate v. Stewart Estate 2007 WL3019262 (Ont. S.C.J.), 2007 CarswellOnt 650

Comments? Send us an email at hull.lawyers@gmail.com, call us on the comment line at 206-350-6636, or leave us a comment on the Hull on Estates blog.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Android | RSS

Listen to The Capital Account

This week on Hull on Estate and Succession Planning, Ian and Suzana talk about taking capital out of an account and what to consider along the way.

Comments? Send us an email at hullandhull@gmail.com, call us on the comment line at 206-457-1985, or leave us a comment on the Hull on Estate and Succession Planning blog.

Listen to The Formal Passing of Accounts.

This week on Hull on Estate and Succession Planning, Ian and Suzana talk about the specifics of what happens when you have to go to court to formally pass accounts.

Comments? Send us and email at hullandhull@gmail.com, call us on the comment line at 206-457-1985, or leave us a comment on the Hull on Estate and Succession Planning blog.

Contingency fees are new in the Province of Ontario and particularly new in the field of Estate Litigation. The extent of the regulation of these fee arrangements reflects the unease with which the Province’s legal community regards them.

Regardless of this apparent unease, on issues of the validity of a Will or a person’s interest in or claim against an Estate, some clients are increasingly tending to favour contingency arrangements. 

Where the legal issue at stake is the validity or otherwise of a Will, then a litigation result will often be an all-or-nothing proposition. Such an issue is well-suited to contingency fees. 

Some of the practical issues raised by the arrival of contingency fees at this early stage are:

1. These cases are not immediately profitable, so any law firm wanting to explore contingency opportunities ought to be prepared to wait a few years to see substantial return;

2.  Lawyers must allow the client to make all major decisions, knowing that some of those decisions may be unreasonable or risky, thereby lessening the possibility or value after costs of recovery, thereby lessening what the lawyer will be paid in case of success, and this business frustration cannot be allowed to interfere in the lawyer’s function as advocate and legal service provider. The lawyer is still restricted to giving advice, taking instructions and fulfilling them even if those instructions impact on the chances of getting paid;

3.  Lawyers ought to be very clear with clients at the outset that they may obtain a windfall in case of early settlement, even to the extent of putting those very words to the client in writing.

Early indications are that contingency fees in litigation offer a further avenue for lawyers to take on otherwise marginal cases from a business perspective, and an avenue for access to justice for clients of lesser means, albeit lawyers must take care not to allow the fee arrangement to interfere with their fundamental role as advocating, advising and fulfilling the client’s legitimate instructions, however that may impact on the chances of getting paid.

Thanks for reading.

Sean