What is the proper interpretation of s. 17 of the Solicitors Act, s.16(1) of the Solicitor’s Act?

What then is the proper interpretation of these various provisions of the Solicitors Act? The question was addressed in yet another decision of this court that has tried to wrestle with this issue, namely, Cozzi v. Heerdegen, [2016] O.J. No. 2510 (Div. Ct.). In that case, Dambrot J. considered some of the history of these provisions from the Solicitors Act. He was faced with the same argument regarding the effect of s. 17, and its apparent blanket prohibition against the recovery of fees under any written fee agreement, without approval of an assessment officer. Dambrot J. considered the meaning and effect of s. 17, along with the other related provisions in the Solicitors Act. He rejected the interpretation of s. 17 that would lead to a blanket prohibition on the recovery of fees. In doing so, he said, at para. 16: I remain of the view that an agreement within the meaning of s. 16(1) of the Act is a fee agreement that is out of the ordinary, such as contingency fee arrangements. At any rate, a simple retainer agreement in writing setting out a solicitor’s hourly rate does not fall within s. 16(1). If a simple written retainer agreement setting out an hourly rate does not fall within s. 16(1), then it escapes the prohibition against action in s. 23 of the Solicitors Act.