Porter v. McKenzie Lake Lawyers: Fee Assessment Jurisdiction Excludes Human Rights Claims

• The Ontario Superior Court ruled that fee assessments under the Solicitors Act do not have jurisdiction over alleged human rights violations, such as a lawyer's failure to accommodate ADHD.
• The client in Porter v. McKenzie Lake Lawyers, LLP sought to have their ADHD treated as a human rights issue during a fee assessment, arguing for discounted legal services.
• The assessment officer and subsequently the Superior Court confirmed that the scope of a fee assessment is limited to determining if legal accounts are fair and reasonable.
• Claims of discrimination or failure to accommodate by a lawyer must be pursued through the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario or a separate legal action, not a fee assessment.
• The Superior Court dismissed the client's motion to oppose the assessment officer's report and ordered the client to pay the lawyers' partial indemnity costs of $17,955.02.

The court clarified that remedies for alleged discrimination or human rights violations against a lawyer must be pursued through an action or an application to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, rather than through the fee assessment process.

A client initiated assessment proceedings against McKenzie Lake Lawyers, LLP, following the termination of their retainer for a family law matter. The client had retained the firm on July 8, 2020, with an individual lawyer acting as the lawyer of record and supervising counsel. Over the course of the retainer, fifteen accounts were rendered, totaling $95,993.68. The client ended the representation on July 10, 2022, opting to represent themselves, and subsequently launched the assessment process on August 25, 2022.

During the assessment proceedings, the client, who has attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and memory processing and recall issues, received various accommodations, including permission to record proceedings for note-taking and the ability to submit written replies after hearings. However, the client's primary contention during the assessment was that the lawyers' conduct during the retainer constituted a human rights issue related to their ADHD, arguing this should lead to discounted legal services. In February 2025, the assessment officer issued an order for the client to pay $92,044.94.

The assessment officer acknowledged the client's position regarding the alleged failure to accommodate their ADHD but ultimately concluded that she lacked jurisdiction over such a claim. She determined that issues of alleged discrimination fell outside the scope of a fee assessment conducted under the Ontario Solicitors Act. This decision prompted the client to challenge the assessment officer's May 7, 2025, report and certificate of assessment.

The client subsequently brought a motion to oppose the confirmation of the assessment officer's report and certificate under section 6(9) of the Solicitors Act and rule 54.09(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The client asserted that the assessment officer had erred on several grounds, including procedural unfairness, bias, the lawyers' alleged failure to produce their entire file, and not calling every timekeeper as a witness.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice, in Porter v. McKenzie Lake Lawyers, LLP, 2026 ONSC 4787, comprehensively dismissed the client's motion. The court found no basis to interfere with the assessment officer's decision, confirming that there was no procedural unfairness or bias. Regarding the production of the legal file, the court agreed with the assessment officer that the lawyers were only obligated to produce documents necessary to satisfy the relevant onus. Similarly, the court found no error in the assessment officer's conclusion that the supervising lawyer's evidence was sufficient to meet the law firm's burden, especially given the absence of significant disputes over the entries made by non-witness timekeepers.

A central aspect of the Superior Court's ruling concerned the jurisdictional boundaries of a fee assessment under the Ontario Solicitors Act. The court specifically addressed the client's claim regarding the lawyers' alleged failure to accommodate their ADHD. The Superior Court found no legal authority to support the client's position that such a human rights issue could be adjudicated within the framework of a fee assessment.

The court affirmed the assessment officer's conclusion, stating that an assessment under section 6 of the Solicitors Act is exclusively concerned with determining whether a solicitor's account is fair and reasonable. Consequently, the statutory jurisdiction of the assessment officer does not extend to allegations of a solicitor's failure to accommodate, such as those related to ADHD. The court clarified that remedies for alleged discrimination or human rights violations against a lawyer must be pursued through an action or an application to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, rather than through the fee assessment process. This ruling underscores the distinct nature and scope of different legal avenues available for client complaints against legal counsel.

In other recent judicial activity touching upon human rights, the Ontario Divisional Court on April 21 set aside interim and reconsideration decisions of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, except for allegations it had not dismissed, due to an unfair and unreasonable conflation of two hearings. Additionally, on January 23, the Ontario Court of Appeal awarded damages under section 137.1(9) of Ontario’s Courts of Justice Act, 1990, upon dismissing the respondent’s c.

The decision in Porter v. McKenzie Lake Lawyers, LLP clarifies the distinct legal avenues available for clients seeking redress against their lawyers, particularly concerning human rights allegations. It firmly establishes that the scope of fee assessment human rights claims is limited, and an Ontario Solicitors Act assessment of accounts is not the appropriate forum for addressing claims of lawyer failure to accommodate ADHD or other forms of discrimination. This ruling provides crucial guidance for both legal professionals defending their accounts and clients contemplating disputes with their legal counsel.

For lawyers, the case reinforces that while they must provide accommodations during assessment proceedings, as was done for the client in this case, allegations of human rights breaches during the retainer itself fall outside the purview of fee assessments. Clients, conversely, are directed to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario remedy or separate legal action for such claims. The Superior Court's decision to wholly dismiss the client's motion and confirm the assessment officer's report also resulted in an order for the client to pay the lawyers' requested partial indemnity costs of $17,955.02, which included HST and disbursements.

Lawyers defending their accounts or advising clients on disputes with legal counsel should note that fee assessments under Ontario's Solicitors Act do not have jurisdiction over alleged human rights violations, such as failure to accommodate, which must be pursued through the Human Rights Tribunal or separate legal action.

Source: Original reporting via Canadian Lawyer