Rules and regulations referred to
Contingency Fee Agreements, O. Reg. 195/04, s. 5(1)(b)
Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, rule 7.08
APPEAL from the orders of Chiappetta J. of the Superior Court
of Justice dated June 5, 2017; June 23, 2017,  O.J. No.
4456, 2017 ONSC 3857 (S.C.J.); and September 14, 2017 (S.C.J.).
Peter I. Waldmann, for appellants.
J. Thomas Curry and Tiffany M. O’Hearn Davies, for respondent,
The judgment of the court was delivered by
DOHERTY J.A.: —
 This appeal arises out of a contingency fee agreement
between the appellants and the law firm Stockwoods LLP
(“Stockwoods”). More specifically, it concerns Stockwoods’s entitlement under the terms of the agreement to a percentage of the
settlement that was paid to the appellants for their legal costs.
 The motion judge held that Stockwoods was entitled to
payment of that amount. The appellants claim that she erred in
so holding. I would dismiss the appeal.
 In March 2006, the appellants sued the Government of
Canada for millions of dollars. The claim arose out of Abdullah
Almalki’s detention and torture in Syria, and the alleged complicity
of the Canadian Government in that detention and torture. The
other plaintiffs in the action were Mr. Almalki’s wife, children
 In late 2008, Mr. Almalki approached Stockwoods about the
possibility of acting for the appellants in their action against the
Government of Canada. After about six weeks of negotiation,
Stockwoods and the appellants entered into a contingency fee
agreement, and Stockwoods assumed carriage of the action in
early 2009. Mr. Almalki had retained his original lawyers on
a contingency fee basis as well.