Endorsement BY THE COURT: — This is an appeal by the
solicitors who represented the plaintiffs in two proceedings in
the Superior Court which ultimately led to a motion for approval
of the infant settlement reached in both of those proceedings.
 It is not, as the title of proceedings would indicate, an
appeal by those plaintiffs.
 There are no responding parties to this appeal. The plaintiffs do not oppose this appeal nor do the respondents. The Children’s Lawyer was served with the appeal materials but takes
no position on the appeal.
 The solicitors appeal the motion judge’s decision to reduce
their fee on the accident benefits claim, and to not award them
GST/HST (which they claim at a “pro-rated” rate of 8 per cent)
in addition to the amount claimed for fees. They also appeal the
motion judge’s refusal to grant a sealing order and his failure to
refer their fees to an assessment officer.
 At the outset of argument, Mr. Adair, on behalf of the solicitors, abandoned the appeal in relation to the sealing order and
did not make any argument in relation to the assessment point.
 The facts of the motor vehicle accident giving rise to this
matter are set out in paras. 2 and 3 of the reasons of the motion
judge. The infant plaintiff suffered a traumatic brain injury and
has permanent sequelae as a result of the accident.
 Mr. Wallbridge was retained shortly after the accident to
act in relation the tort and accident benefits claims. In July
2006, about two years post-accident, Mr. Pothier signed a con-
tingency fee agreement (“CFA”). The relevant part of that docu-
Assuming we obtain a settlement on your behalf, we will charge one third of
your recovery, plus GST and disbursements.
 Both actions ultimately settled before trial in the amounts
set out in paras. 8-10 of the reasons of the motion judge:
Costs including HST $110,000.00
Accident Benefits Claim
Total Amount $850,000.00