Neither Mr. Williams’ case nor Mr. Ahmad’s case is one of
those “clearest of cases” warranting a stay based on entrapment:
see Mack, at pp. 976-77 S.C.R. The police conduct in these
cases did not carry the risk that innocent persons would commit
a crime that they would have not otherwise committed. Neither
was this conduct that the citizenry cannot tolerate. On the contrary, the police relied on legitimate investigative techniques that
are responsive to the modern realities of the drug trade and its
reliance on virtual spaces to evade police scrutiny.
 For these reasons, I would allow the Crown appeal in
Mr. Williams’ case, dismiss his cross-appeal, dismiss Mr. Ahmad’s
appeal and make the dispositions outlined by the majority.
Crown’s appeal allowed; cross-appeal and
A’s appeals dismissed.
Weenen v. Biadi
2018 ONCA 288
Court of Appeal for Ontario, G.J. Epstein, Hourigan and Paciocco JJ.A.
March 21, 2018
Professions — Barristers and solicitors — Fees — Client awarded
damages of $390,000 and $550,000 in costs — Court of Appeal dismissing
defendant’s appeal and ordering him to pay client costs of $50,000 —
Court of Appeal having jurisdiction to award charging order under
Solicitors Act or solicitor’s lien over damages and costs awarded by
Superior Court — Preconditions for grant of charging order also applying to solicitor’s lien — Solicitors’ motion for charging order or lien
being dismissed as evidence did not support finding that client was unable or unwilling to pay solicitors’ fees — Fact that client was seeking
assessment of solicitors’ fees not constituting evidence of his inability or
unwillingness to pay — Solicitors Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.15, s. 34(1).
The client was awarded damages of $390,000 at trial, and the defendant was
ordered to pay his costs in the amount of $550,000. The Court of Appeal dismissed
the defendant’s appeal and ordered him to pay the client his costs of the appeal in
the amount of $50,000. The law firm brought a motion in the Court of Appeal for
a charge or lien in the amount of $360,836.88 on the funds the defendant had been
ordered to pay the client. The law firm sought that remedy as either a charging
order under s. 34(1) of the Solicitors Act or a lien under the court’s inherent jurisdiction. Before the law firm brought the motion, the client had initiated an
Held, the motion should be dismissed.