IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Date: 20130807

Docket: M101180

Registry:
Vancouver

Between:

Dong Mei Jin

Plaintiff

And

Vincenzo Paolo
Caleca and Debbie Caleca

Defendants

Before:
District Registrar Cameron

Oral Reasons for Decision

[1]            
Following the settlement of a personal injury claim, the Plaintiff and
the Defendants were at odds with respect to the Plaintiff’s entitlement to
recover a disbursement incurred for translation services in the sum of
$1,122.27.

[2]            
The Plaintiff’s first language is Mandarin, and her ability to
communicate in the English language is very limited.  She entered into a fee
agreement with the law firm, Z. Philip Wiseman Law Corporation, that
provided that the law firm would represent her to prosecute an action for personal
injuries arising out of a motor vehicle accident which occurred on
October 16, 2008.

[3]            
The fee agreement is brief being one page in length.  The relevant
portion of the agreement says:

The legal fees to be paid to the
Z. Philip Wiseman Law Corporation will be 25% of the total amount
recovered plus disbursements plus GST and PST.

[4]            
The Defendants do not take any issue with the decision by the law firm
to retain a translator to assist the lawyers in the firm to fully and
effectively communicate with the Plaintiff.  It is conceded that this was a
proper or necessary disbursement.

[5]            
Further, the Defendants do not take any issue with the reasonableness of
the translation fees claimed in the sum of $1,122.27. Rather, they ground their
objection to paying this disbursement on their interpretation of the print
advertising done by the law firm aimed at attracting new clients to the firm.

[6]            
There is a considerable amount of affidavit evidence before me, but the
matter resolves down to this:  at the time that this retainer agreement was
entered into on February 5th, 2010, the law firm web site was silent as to
what obligation, if any, a client would have to pay the cost of translation
fees.  At the time the web site provided that the law firm offered services in
a number of foreign languages.

[7]            
Approximately one year later, in February 2011, the law firm web site
advertisement was changed and it said that translator fees are provided “at no
cost to you”. Based on this change to the web site advertising, Ms. Hall, on
behalf of the Defendants, submitted that there should be read into the fee
agreement between the Plaintiff in this case and the law firm a provision that
she would be held harmless for any translation fees and as such she ought not
to be able to recover them on this assessment.

[8]            
With respect, I do not agree. While I will not express a view as to
whether or not there ought to be any recovery of a translation disbursement
incurred for a client who retained the law firm after the change to the
advertisement in February 2011, it is common ground that in February 2010 when
the subject retainer was entered into there was no term in the retainer
agreement that held the Plaintiff harmless for any translation fees.

[9]            
There was no evidence before me to support any amendment to the existing
retainer agreement between the Plaintiff and her law firm and based upon the
concessions I have noted that were made by the Defendants, the disbursement is
allowed.

_______ “Registrar
Cameron”________
District Registrar Cameron