The correspondence between the parties demonstrates
that the law firm has asked the client for instalment payments
toward the outstanding accounts on at least four occasions over
the past several years. Tellingly, the client has made payments on
three of those four occasions. The law firm does not appear to
have requested the full amount due on the outstanding accounts
or a corresponding refusal or inability to pay. There is, of course,
the pending assessment but, in our view, the fact that the client
contests the amount he owes the law firm is not evidence of his
inability or unwillingness to pay.
 The evidence supports a finding that the client owes money
to the law firm for unpaid accounts. However, this in and of
itself does not justify a charging order or lien.
 On this record, we are of the view that the law firm has
not satisfied us that we should exercise our discretion to grant
the requested charging order or lien. The motion is therefore
 Finally, we note that originally, the law firm also sought an
order pursuant to rule 72.05(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure,
R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 that the $50,000 in costs of the appeal
currently being held by the accountant of the Superior Court as
security not be dealt with except on notice to the law firm. We
have been advised that this money has already been paid out. The
motion for an order pursuant to rule 72.05(1) is therefore also
dismissed, as moot.
 If the parties cannot agree on costs, they may provide the
court with brief written submissions not exceeding three pages
within 14 days of the release of these reasons.
Murphy et al. v. S.P. Hart Home Inspections et al.
Amerispec Canada Inc., operating as Amerispec of
Canada, et al. v. S.P. Hart Associates Ltd. et al.
[Indexed as: Murphy v. S.P. Hart Home Inspections]
2018 ONSC 1648
Superior Court of Justice, Monahan J.
March 14, 2018
Limitations — Discoverability — Due diligence — Principle of discoverability applying to claims for contribution and indemnity — Plaintiffs
finding underground storage tank on their residential property — Plaintiffs commencing action in 2011 against previous owner, their own real