The following excerpt is from Taiga Building Products Ltd. v. Deloitte & Touché, LLP, 2014 BCSC 1083 (CanLII):
In my view the plaintiffs were required by the engagement letter to resist the notices of reassessment in the courts. If the parties intended the engagement letter to mean the contingent fees were to be refunded simply because a notice of reassessment and demand for payment were delivered that language could have been employed in the engagement letter. It was not. To read it as if that language was present in my opinion would fail to give effect to the intention of the parties as revealed in the engagement letter. Such an interpretation ought not to be adopted. See Athwal v. Black Top Cabs Ltd., 2012 BCCA 107 at para. 42.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.