Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The court considered whether Bernard LLP's account for legal fees and disbursements should be reduced under section 71 of the Legal Profession Act.
   
• MWP's competing appointment to review all of Bernard's bills was dismissed after it failed to file a compliant hearing record and served no supporting affidavits.
   
• Associate Judge Muir accepted Bernard's evidence over Mr. Wilson's largely unsupported assertions regarding staffing, billing practices, and time spent on the file.
   
• Interest entitlements on both the unpaid account and the retainer funds held in trust were addressed under the Act's trust and interest provisions.
   
• Costs were later contested in a separate decision, requiring the registrar to determine entitlement under section 72 of the Legal Profession Act.
   
• Special circumstances arising from MWP's conduct throughout the proceeding supported a costs award to Bernard, though its request for increased costs was ultimately declined.
   

Facts of the case

Bernard LLP acted as solicitor for Michael Wilson & Partners, Ltd. ("MWP") under a retainer agreement dated October 23, 2013, in connection with collection proceedings against Desiree Resources Inc. and Robin Dow for unpaid fees of USD $584,399.31 [as stated in the source: "USD $584.399.31"] plus contractual interest. Bernard filed an appointment on September 23, 2019 to review its bill dated October 11, 2018, totalling $16,687.96 (fees of $12,421.05, disbursements of $3,315.15, a $44.70 scanning charge, and $907.06 in taxes) for work performed between August 16 and October 4, 2018 by partner David Jarrett and associate Anne Amos-Stewart. MWP filed its own appointment on October 3, 2019 seeking review of all of Bernard's bills. After repeated adjournments spanning more than four years, the matters proceeded before Associate Judge Muir, sitting as Registrar, from November 24 to 26, 2025. At the outset, MWP's appointment was dismissed after it failed to serve a compliant hearing record or index and produced no affidavit evidence, in breach of prior peremptory orders. Bernard's appointment proceeded on its account, with Michael Wilson appearing on MWP's behalf. Following the January 19, 2026 reasons on the merits (2026 BCSC 59), a further dispute arose over costs, resolved in written reasons dated July 13, 2026 (2026 BCSC 1302), after a protracted exchange of submissions marked by delay and procedural disputes on MWP's part.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The review was governed by the Legal Profession Act, S.B.C. 1998, c. 9. Section 71 sets out the factors a registrar must weigh in assessing a lawyer's bill, including the complexity of the issues, the skill required, the amount involved, time reasonably spent, and the result obtained. Section 73 empowers the registrar to certify the amount allowed and to add interest calculated at the rate set out in the retainer agreement or, absent agreement, at the Court Order Interest Act rate. Section 62 requires trust funds to be held in an interest-bearing account for the benefit of the Law Foundation, unless the client instructs that funds be placed in a segregated account under section 62(5). The retainer agreement's clause 2 permitted Bernard to assign additional lawyers to the file as needed, a provision central to MWP's objection to Ms. Amos-Stewart's involvement. On costs, section 72 establishes a general rule tying entitlement to whether at least one-sixth of a bill is deducted on review, subject to the registrar's discretion under section 72(2) to depart from that rule where special circumstances exist. The Code of Professional Conduct for British Columbia's rule on limited scope retainers (3.2-1.1) was also considered in assessing MWP's claim that Bernard's retainer was restricted to a local-agent role.

Reasoning and analysis

Associate Judge Muir found the work billed was neither complex nor novel but was reasonably necessary, properly authorized, and billed at discounted rates below counsel's standard hourly rates, with a further 15% reduction already applied. Mr. Wilson's allegations of duplication, overbilling, and an unauthorized "second fee earner" were rejected as unsupported by evidence and contradicted by his own contemporaneous emails acknowledging the work. The court accepted Bernard's account almost in full, disallowing only the $44.70 scanning charge plus applicable taxes for lack of supporting evidence. On interest, the court held Bernard was entitled to 12% per annum on the unpaid account under the retainer agreement and section 73(3), while MWP was entitled to pre-judgment interest on the $20,000 retainer held in trust, calculated under the Court Order Interest Act. In the subsequent costs decision, the registrar noted the account was reduced by $50.07 [per para. 126 of 2026 BCSC 59: $44.70 + $5.37 tax; the costs decision itself refers to this figure as "$50.37" — flagged as a source-document inconsistency], or by roughly 23% once the trust interest award was factored in — a proportion that would ordinarily entitle MWP to costs under the one-sixth rule in section 72(1). However, the registrar invoked section 72(2), finding MWP's unreasonable positions, delay, and lack of evidentiary support constituted special circumstances warranting costs to Bernard regardless. Bernard's bill of costs was largely accepted at 92 tariff units under Scale B, with disbursements reduced in several categories (agents' fees, photocopying, couriers, and scanning) for insufficient evidence of necessity. Bernard's request for a 1.5x uplift in costs for delay attributable to a 2021 adjournment was declined, as the registrar found the resulting delay could not reasonably have been foreseen when the adjournment was sought.

Ruling and overall outcome

Associate Judge Muir dismissed MWP's appointment for procedural non-compliance and upheld Bernard's account save for the minor $50.07 deduction [source states "$50.37" in the costs decision — see flagged inconsistency above] for an unsupported scanning charge, while crediting MWP with pre-judgment interest on its $20,000 trust retainer and Bernard with 12% contractual interest on the outstanding account. On the subsequent costs application, the court found Bernard substantially successful and awarded it costs of $13,412.82, comprising tariff costs of $11,334.40 (92 units at $110 plus 12% tax) and disbursements of $2,078.42, while declining Bernard's request for increased costs. The form of order was settled with $13,412.82 inserted for costs and $40,625.78 inserted as the certified amount owing, with the requirement for MWP's approval of the order dispensed with given its conduct throughout the proceeding.