Personal injury action arose from gas range incident or flash fire
In personal injury proceedings, the British Columbia Supreme Court found it necessary to stay a review of legal fees under BC’s Legal Profession Act, 1998 (LPA) until the determination of a professional negligence action against the plaintiff’s lawyers.
In Simpson v League and Williams Law Corporation, 2026 BCSC 605, the plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit relating to a gas range in his home. He alleged that the incident involved an explosion, while the defendant manufacturer asserted that there was a flash fire.
Throughout the personal injury litigation, four law firms – League and Williams Law Corporation, Donald J. Renaud Law Corporation, Acheson Sweeney Foley Sahota, and Preszler Law Group – acted for the plaintiff.
Sometime in March 2025, while Renaud was representing the plaintiff, the parties settled the personal injury claim for $4,118,871.02, including costs, disbursements, and taxes. After a mediation, the four firms agreed to an allocation of fees, including taxes.
The plaintiff brought a professional negligence action against the lawyers who acted on his behalf in the personal injury suit. He claimed that they failed to represent him properly.
The plaintiff requested an LPA review of the legal fees charged by Renaud and League and Williams. Specifically, he sought to:
- Cancel the contingency fee agreement, or
- Order a quantum meruit assessment of fees between five and 10 percent of net proceeds (15 percent maximum), and
- Direct accounting adjustments and interest
Renaud applied to stay the LPA review pending the determination of the professional negligence action. League and Williams took no position.
Legal fee review stayed
The Supreme Court of British Columbia ordered as follows:
- Renaud should file and deliver its affidavit/s of justification by May 15
- Immediately after such delivery, the court would stay the LPA review until the determination of the professional negligence claim against Renaud and two other defendants
- The parties could use the evidence – which they provided in the LPA proceeding until the delivery date for the affidavit/s – in the professional negligence action, subject to the trial judge’s discretion
- The parties had permission to apply to vary or vacate the court’s order if the professional negligence action did not move forward expeditiously
The court saw a significant overlap between the plaintiff’s allegations in both proceedings.
The court explained that this overlap concerned the plaintiff’s allegation that counsel’s conduct – releasing the co-defendants, narrowing liability, and failing to integrate medical, economic, and engineering evidence – eroded the claim’s evidentiary foundation, decreased damages, and led to a self-perpetuating cycle of delay and control that undermined the plaintiff’s position and the contingency fee agreement’s fairness.
The court found it necessary to stay the LPA review pending the determination of the professional negligence claim to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings and potentially inconsistent judicial determinations on the same or similar facts.
The plaintiff argued that the LPA review would narrow the professional negligence action’s issues. The court agreed to the extent that Renaud’s response to the LPA review’s issues would be relevant in the professional negligence action and would help hasten the discovery process.
The court noted that the usual scope of an LPA review covered the plaintiff’s issues with the lawyer’s bill, including:
- disbursement overcharges
- an interest award that was not itemized or appropriately allocated
- client-paid disbursements
- discounts
- special damages
The court added that the plaintiff’s issues with the contingency fee’s fairness and reasonableness overlapped with the professional negligence claim.
The court concluded that Renaud’s affidavit of justification would assist the parties in both the LPA proceeding and the professional negligence action. The court found that Renaud should respond to all the plaintiff’s concerns in this affidavit.
