Law360 Canada ( March 5, 2026, 1:13 PM EST) -- Appeal by appellants from motion judge’s decision that contingency fee agreement (CFA) was not fair. The respondent, Leduc, suffered a hypoxic ischemic brain injury during his birth and, a year later, was diagnosed with cerebral palsy. His mother, the respondent Vanier, retained Wallbridge of the appellant law firm, Wallbridge Wallbridge, to investigate a claim of medical malpractice. Wallbridge and Vanier executed a CFA in August 2015 (the 2015 CFA), and another in May 2018. Both agreements provided that the appellant would be paid one-third of the compensation (including interest but not costs and disbursements) received from Leduc’s claim, provided the action settled before trial. If the appellant was required to prepare for or to conduct a trial, the 2018 CFA provided that the appellant was entitled to charge 25 per cent of the settlement or judgment, plus a prescribed hourly rate for trial preparation and trial time, disbursements plus HST. After the 2015 CFA was signed, Wallbridge commenced an action against the attending obstetrician, the hospital and the nursing staff. The action eventually settled for an all-inclusive sum of $14 million. The Wallbridge firm, on behalf of the respondents, moved for approval of the settlement and the fee payable under the 2018 CFA. The appellant’s contingency fee (exclusive of HST) equaled approximately $4.108 million. The motion judge found the 2018 CFA to be neither fair at the time it was made, nor reasonable at the time of the motion. He disallowed the proposed fee and approved a fee of $3.25 million plus HST and disbursements in its place. The appellant appealed both the motion judge’s findings of unfairness and unreasonableness of the 2018 CFA....