I am satisfied that the terms of para. 16 of the contingency
fee agreement are consistent with s. 28.1(8) of the Act. Paragraph
16 recognizes that the client and the lawyer must bring a joint
application as required by the section. It also recognizes that,
despite the joint application, the court must still determine
whether “exceptional circumstances” exist. The appellants’
decision to agree to make the joint application, if requested
by Stockwoods, reflects the requirements of the Act and does
not, in my view, constitute a “contracting out” of those requirements.
C. Were the appellants denied the opportunity to make submissions on the question of “exceptional circumstances”?
 The appellants present this submission as a procedural due
process issue. It is, in my view, a reformulation of the argument
that by agreeing to bring a joint application with Stockwoods for
court approval of the payment, the appellants were not agreeing
to support the application. I have addressed that argument in the
context of the submissions respecting the proper interpretation of
para. 16 of the agreement, which required the appellants to
support Stockwoods’s application.
 My reading of para. 16 disposes of any procedural fairness
argument. Procedural fairness does not demand that the appellants be given the opportunity to do something they promised
they would not do.
D. Did the motion judge err in finding “exceptional
 The motion judge’s reasons dated September 14, 2017 set
out in detail the many reasons why she was satisfied that were
“exceptional circumstances” justifying the payment to Stockwoods under para. 16 of the contingency fee agreement. I do not
propose to repeat those reasons.
 It is sufficient for my purposes to indicate that the factors
identified by the motion judge were properly considered by her.
Those factors included the factual and legal complexity of the litigation, the substantial financial risk assumed by Stockwoods during the several years in which it represented the appellants, the
significant importance of the litigation — not only to the parties,
but to the public — and the immense resources expended by
Stockwoods in achieving what was a very good result for the
appellants. In my view, these factors, all of which were supported
by the record before the motion judge, justified the motion judge’s
finding of “exceptional circumstances”.