Summary

Keywords

Contract — Formation — Parties — Interpretation of contract to determine who is party to agreement and responsible for paying outstanding legal fees — Whether lower courts erred in their reasoning and decisions — Whether application for leave to appeal raises issues of national or public importance.

Summary

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The applicant, Kevin Drizen, signed an engagement agreement with the respondent, MBM Intellectual Property Law LLP (“MBM”). Following the termination of the retainer, MBM sought payment of approximately $50,000 in outstanding legal fees. At an assessment of MBM’s accounts, Mr. Drizen claimed that he was not a party to the agreement and that, instead, his company, GlycoBiosciences Inc. (“Glyco”) was the party to the agreement and therefore responsible for paying any outstanding fees.

Given that the assessment officer did not have jurisdiction to decide the issue of whether Mr. Drizen or Glyco was a party to the agreement, she referred the issue to the Superior Court for determination. The application judge concluded that Mr. Drizen was a party to the agreement. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Lower Court Rulings