“The appellant also asserts that the CFA [contingency fee agreement] cannot be enforced because it does not comply with the requirements of the Solicitors Act and the regulation under it (then O. Reg. 195/04). While the regulation, at that time, stipulated various items that had to be included in a contingency fee agreement, neither the statute nor the regulation provided that non-compliance with these requirements rendered a contingency fee agreement void or unenforceable. Rather, s. 24 of the Solicitors Act reads, in part:
[I]f it appears to the court that the agreement is in all respects fair and reasonable between the parties, it may be enforced by the court by order in such manner and subject to such conditions as to the costs of the application as the court thinks fit….
This court has previously ruled that a contingency fee agreement can be enforced if the court concludes that it is fair and reasonable: Raphael Partners v. Lam (2002), 2002 CanLII 45078 (ON CA), 61 O.R. (3d) 417 (C.A.), at para. 37. Similarly, in Laushway Law Office v. Simpson, 2011 ONSC 4155, 336 D.L.R. (4th) 632, Beaudoin J. said, at para. 126: “I conclude that a CFA that does not meet the requirements of O. Reg 195/04 is not inherently void or voidable.””