TALLCREE FIRST NATION v RATH & COMPANY

The Respondent, Rath & Company, entered into a contingency fee agreement (“CFA”) with the appellant, Tallcree First Nation, in relation to a claim against Canada for failure to provide benefits under Treaty 8. Tallcree commenced a review of the CFA. A Review Officer found the CFA to be reasonable. But that finding was overturned by a Chamber’s Justice on appeal in the Court below, who directed the Respondent to refund the difference of $8,518,075 to “Tallcree”. The Respondent successfully brought an Application to amend or modify the reasons under Rule 9.13, to specify that the refund should be paid to Rath & Company, in trust for Tallcree.

On Appeal to the Court of Appeal, Tallcree contended, among other things, that the Chambers Justice lacked jurisdiction to consider the Application and that the excess fees should be returned directly to Tallcree, not the trust.

It was found that the lower Court's Order anticipated that the correct recipient of the funds would be identified before the refund was issued. The Order specifically referred to Rule 10.27(2), which grants the Chamber’s Justice jurisdiction to order the return of excess funds if lawyer’s charges are reduced on appeal. This Rule also supported the Chambers Justice's authority to address the issue under Rule 9.13, allowing modification of the Order or reasons to facilitate the refund. The Respondent was not introducing new evidence or rearguing the merits of the case, but was instead seeking to address an overlooked issue necessary to implement the original decision. The Chambers Justice had jurisdiction to resolve this matter, as outlined in Rule 10.27(2).