The Parties sought various relief related to entitlement and priority to the property of the deceased Respondent. Among the relief sought, the Respondent’s former legal counsel (“MacMillan”) sought a Charging Order against any of the Respondent’s property pursuant to Rule 10.4.

MacMillan was retained by the Respondent to address various legal matters and accumulated significant unpaid fees for services. Upon a review of MacMillan’s accounts for services rendered, the Review Officer certified certain amounts due and owing to MacMillan. MacMillan argued that the services provided had the effect of preserving the Respondent’s property; however, the Court noted that there was insufficient evidence to support that assertion. Justice Marion also found that MacMillan delayed seeking a Charging Order for years without explanation.

Due to the delay in seeking the Charging Order and the lack of evidence to establish a connection between the services provided by MacMillan and any preservation of the Respondent’s property, the Court ultimately dismissed MacMillan’s application for a Charging Order.