The Supreme Court of British Columbia has ruled in favour of Sebastien Anderson Professional Law Corporation, operating as Labour Rights Law, allowing the firm to recover more than $22,000 in unpaid legal fees and interest from a client.
The case centred on a fee dispute arising from a worker’s unsuccessful complaint with WorkSafeBC regarding his termination from A-1 Marine Services Ltd. and alleged collusion between his union and employer
B.E. had retained Labour Rights Law in December 2018 to represent him in a discriminatory action complaint under the Workers Compensation Act and a duty of fair representation complaint under the Labour Relations Code. The case quickly became entangled in jurisdictional complexities when it was revealed that B.E. ‘s union had already filed a grievance on his behalf shortly after his termination, unbeknownst to the law firm.
B.E. had received an $8,000 settlement from the grievance, which the court found critical to the outcome of his WorkSafeBC complaint.
The court’s decision detailed the law firm’s efforts to navigate the jurisdictional challenges posed by the union’s prior grievance. According to the ruling, the law firm, led by lawyer Anthony Moffatt, worked extensively to argue that B.E. had not been informed of the grievance and that the union had kept him “in the dark.” This argument required significant time and resources, including collecting documentary evidence and preparing detailed reply submissions to both the union and the employer.
However, despite these efforts, WorkSafeBC dismissed B.E. ‘s complaint, finding that it had been resolved through the grievance process. B.E.’s dissatisfaction with the result led to the current dispute over legal fees, with B.E. alleging that the law firm had guided him in the wrong direction and failed to adhere to its retainer agreement. B.E., who appeared in court on his own behalf, claimed that the firm should have contacted his union earlier to confirm whether a grievance had been filed.
In its decision, the court rejected his arguments, finding that the law firm had acted appropriately given the circumstances and that the fees charged were fair and commensurate with the work performed. The court noted that the case was marked by a “significant amount of complexity and difficulty,” particularly after it became known that the union had already pursued a grievance on B.E.’s behalf.
“The jurisdictional issue that arose and ultimately defeated his discriminatory complaint is due to the fault of the Client and not the Law Firm,” the court concluded. The ruling also emphasized that B.E. had been informed by the law firm about the significant challenges posed by the union’s position but had nonetheless decided to proceed with the complaint.
The court ordered B.E. to pay the law firm $22,507.59 in unpaid legal fees, along with $3,121.42 in interest, and the costs of the review. Applications by both parties for punitive and aggravated damages were dismissed.
“It is understandable that the Client would be upset about both the result and the cost of getting to that result,” the court said. “However, at the end of the day, I find that the fees charged by the Law Firm are fair and commensurate to the necessary and proper work performed.”
For more information, see Sebastien Anderson Professional Law Corporation (Labour Rights Law) v Engel, 2024 BCSC 1476 (CanLII).
