The Applicant appealed a Decision of a Review Officer characterizing certain invoices issued by the Respondent law firm as final, periodic invoices. The Decision effectively barred the review of nine out of ten invoices as being out of time under Rule 10.10. The Appellant argued that the Review Officer erred by concluding that all ten invoices were “final, periodic accounts” and that the Review Officer acted unfairly.

The Court noted that Review Officers may review retainer agreements and lawyers’ charges for reasonableness. However, they do not have jurisdiction to interpret retainer agreements and thus any questions arising from the terms of the retainer agreement must be referred to the Court pursuant to Rule 10.18(1)(a). The relevant Rules for the Appeal were Rules 10.10, 10.13, 10.17, 10.18, and 10.27.

The Court began by exercising its discretion under Rule 2.23(4) to permit one of the shareholders and directing minds of the Respondent to appear as agent for the corporation.

The Appellants sought to adduce fresh evidence. The Court held that Rules 10.26(2) and (3) constrained the Appeal to the record that was before the Review Officer. The Court did not have jurisdiction to allow documents dated after the hearing.

The Court agreed with the Appellant that the proceeding lacked procedural fairness because the Review Officer failed to assist the self-represented litigants to understand a critical issue that barred a vast majority of the invoices. The Review Officer also failed to give reasons, which the Court held was particularly problematic because the Decision was dispositive. Finally, the Review Officer exceeded his jurisdiction by interpreting the retainer agreement. Based on those errors, the Review Officer’s decision could not stand, and the Court exercised its jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 10.27 to conduct the analysis afresh.

After reviewing the retainer agreement, the Court concluded that the Respondent’s accounts were final, period invoices, and the limitation period in Rule 10.10 barred the review of nine of the ten invoices. As such, the matter was remitted back to the Review Officer to conduct a review of the single invoice that was not barred by Rule 10.10.