Apr 17, 2026
Opening a lawyer’s invoice can feel unfamiliar, with new terms, decimal hours, and detailed line items. This guide is designed to walk you through your invoice so you can review it with confidence and clarity.
- Invoice Summary
Most legal invoices begin with a summary that provides an at a glance overview of the total charges. The summary typically includes the following:
- Invoice number
- Date of the invoice
- Date the invoice is due
- Amount due, inclusive of tax
- Retainer balance/amount in trust, if applicable
- Any previous outstanding invoices, if applicable
- Who performed the tasks, often referred to as the “timekeeper” (partner, associate, law clerk, student)
- Understanding the Billing Structure
Your invoice reflects the fee and billing structure set out in your Retainer Agreement. This agreement outlines the firm’s rate schedule, billing practices, and disbursement policies to ensure clarity in billing from the start.
Two examples of billing structures include:
Hourly Billing
The most standard billing structure in law firms is time-based billing, where time is tracked in increments (6 minutes = 0.1 hours).
Each line entry shows the following:
- Date of service
- Description of the task
- Time spent (quantity)
- Rate of the timekeeper
- Total cost of the task
- Any potential discounts
- You may also notice “non-billable entries”, these are services that are recorded but not charged.
While reviewing your invoice, you’ll see that each entry includes clear descriptions of the work performed and how it contributes to moving your matter forward. This level of detail is meant to give you full transparency into how time is allocated and how your file is progressing. Legal work is often handled as a team, and invoices reflect this collaboration. That means rates can vary depending on who’s working on your file.
Flat Fees
For certain services, a fixed fee may apply. In these cases, the invoice reflects a single agreed-upon price for a specific task. Flat fees are commonly used for services such as mediation, consultations, and probate.
- Services vs. Expenses
On an invoice, you’ll usually see a clear breakdown of the services provided along with any related expenses. Services reflect charges for the time spent completing specific tasks. Expenses, also referred to as disbursements, are costs the firm may incur on your file, such as court filing fees, process server fees, postage or courier services, fees for obtaining records, and printing expenses. These expenses are generally listed at the bottom of the invoice, after the services.
Lastly, your legal invoice is more than just a bill, it’s a detailed record of the work completed on your behalf, so it’s important that it’s clear and easy to follow. We’re always happy to help with any billing questions you may have!
Emilia Szczepkowski
Nothing contained in this post constitutes legal advice or establishes a solicitor-client relationship. If you have any questions regarding your legal rights or legal obligations, you should consult a lawyer.
Apr 7, 2026
For Estates litigators, the date of the Deceased person’s death is perhaps the key piece of information we need to get from a potential client. That date is relevant for many purposes, but the most significant is that it starts a limitation period running. Under section 38(3) of the Trustee Act, most potential claims against a Deceased person become statute barred – in other words, they expire – two years from the date of the death.[1]
Sections 38(2) and (3) reads as follows:
38(2) Except in cases of libel and slander, if a deceased person committed or is by law liable for a wrong to another in respect of his or her person or to another person’s property, the person wronged may maintain an action against the executor or administrator of the person who committed or is by law liable for the wrong.
(3) An action under this section shall not be brought after the expiration of two years from the death of the deceased.
Unlike the standard limitation period in the Limitations Act, 2002, which covers the vast majority of claims, the limitation period set by s. 38(3) runs whether the potential claim is discovered (or even discoverable) or not. The time for bringing a claim can expire without a potential claimant even knowing it existed in the first place. This makes the Trustee Act’s limitation period particularly strict in its operation, leading to a potentially harsh result for would-be claimants. Once two years from death has elapsed, there is rarely anything to be done for a potential claimant, no matter how strong their case might have been.
That said, there are a few important ways that the two-year limitation period can be “tolled,” or suspended. Three of these are set out in the Limitations Act itself. Others exist at common law.
Provisions Under the Limitations Act that Toll the Limitation Period
Section 19(5) of the Limitations Act lists three specific sections of that Act that can delay the expiry of a limitation period, even limitation periods set in another act (such as the Trustee Act): Sections 6, 7 and 11.
Sections 6 and 7: Incapable Parties
Section 6 of the Limitations Act provides that a limitation period does not run against a minor during any time in which the minor does not have a litigation guardian. Section 7 provides the same for an incapable person during any time in which they are not represented by a litigation guardian. For both sections, the litigation guardian must be appointed “in relation to the claim”, not at large or in some other proceeding. As a result, someone would need to seek the appointment of a litigation guardian to address the particular claim and thereby start the limitation period running. (See section 9, which allows a potential defendant to appoint a litigation guardian for the incapable person or minor with a potential claim.)
Section 11: Settlement Discussions
Section 11 tolls the limitation period in specific circumstances where the parties are attempting settlement:
11 (1) If a person with a claim and a person against whom the claim is made have agreed to have an independent third party resolve the claim or assist them in resolving it, the limitation periods established by sections 4 and 15 do not run from the date the agreement is made until,
(a) the date the claim is resolved;
(b) the date the attempted resolution process is terminated; or
(c) the date a party terminates or withdraws from the agreement.
As this section describes, not any settlement discussion will toll the limitation period. Settlement offers back and forth between parties is not enough. There must be agreement to involve a third party, though there need not necessarily be agreement on the identity of that third party, or on a date or particular process. And in the case of Tribury v. Sandra, the court held that it will otherwise give a generous interpretation to the application of section 11:
In circumstances where there is ambiguity in what the parties agreed to mediate or when one of the parties to the litigation does not immediately consent to participate in the mediation process, the limitation period should still be suspended. Otherwise, plaintiffs will be reluctant to engage in a mediation process for fear that they will be ‘caught out’ in the event they did not set out a comprehensive mediation agreement.[2]
In other words, if there is a broad agreement to mediate all issues involving an estate or arising from a death, one party cannot try to say that the limitation period on some specific issue expired during the time there was agreement to mediate.
Common-Law Doctrines that Toll the Limitation Period
Finally, the Court of Appeal has held that common law doctrines can also toll the limitation period under s. 38(3) of the Trustee Act. Moldaver J.A., speaking for the court in that case, held as follows:
In my view, s. 38(3) was exempted from the new Act so that its common law status would be preserved and it would remain immune from the discoverability rule. In other words, the legislature intended that s. 38(3) should continue to be governed by common law principles.[3]
Fraudulent Concealment
The doctrine of fraudulent concealment is one such principle. Where the existence of a claim has been fraudulently concealed from the potential claimant, the doctrine suspends the running of the limitation period until the potential claimant could reasonably discover the cause of action.[4]
Special Circumstances
Another common-law doctrine is the doctrine of special circumstances, which is available to permit a court to add parties to an existing action, provided the defendant knew of the claim and is not significantly prejudiced. The provision continues to apply to limitation periods that remain in effect outside the Limitations Act, despite the fact that the doctrine was abolished by s. 20 of that Act for cases governed by the limitation periods set out in that Act.[5]
Conclusion
All of these exceptions rely on the existence of specific facts, which won’t apply to most potential claims. While they may be useful tools in your lawyer’s tool belt, by far the easiest way to make sure you are able to advance your claim against an estate is to make sure you consult a lawyer as soon as possible.
Laura Cardiff
Nothing contained in this post constitutes legal advice or establishes a solicitor-client relationship. If you have any questions regarding your legal rights or legal obligations, you should consult a lawyer.
[1] Note that the Trustee Act does not apply to all claims you may want to bring against an estate, which may have either longer or significantly shorter limitation periods. For example, the limitation period for a dependant’s support claim is 6 months from the date of probate. The best advice is always to consult a lawyer as soon as you think you may have a claim.
[2] Tribury v. Sandro, 2013 ONSC 658 (CanLII), at para 69
[3] Giroux Estate v. Trillium Health Centre (2005), 2005 CanLII 1488 (ON CA), 74 O.R. (3d) 341, [2005] O.J. No. 226 (C.A.), at para 33.
[4] Ibid at para 34.
[5] Bikur Cholim Jewish Volunteer Services v. Penna Estate, 2009 ONCA 196 (CanLII), at para 51.
Mar 31, 2026
When someone you know passes away, there is more to manage than just the impact of their loss. There is a legal process that determines how their finances are handled, debts are paid, and inheritances are distributed. It can feel overwhelming if you’re not familiar with the terminology or steps involved. This guide breaks down the fundamentals of estates in Ontario in way that is easy to understand.
What is an Estate?
An estate is everything a person owned (assets) and owed (liabilities) at the time of their death.
Example: Bob passes away. At the time of his death, he owned a house, a chequing account with $2,000, and a savings account with $40,000. He also owed $6,000 to CRA. All these together form Bob’s “Estate.”
What is an Executor?
An executor (aka an estate trustee) is an individual who manages someone’s estate after they die. There can be more than one estate trustee, and sometimes a trust company can act as the estate trustee instead of an individual. An executor is usually specified in a will or otherwise appointed by court order.
Example: Bob passed away leaving a valid will that that names George as the executor of his Estate. George will be responsible for accessing and closing Bob’s bank accounts, paying the debt to CRA and other liabilities, selling the house, and paying the remaining money to the beneficiaries named in the will, among other responsibilities.
What exactly is “Probate”?
Probate is the term for the process of obtaining a “Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee” also commonly referred to as a “probate certificate”.
Example: For Sally and Donna to receive their inheritance following Bob’s death, a process called “probate” must occur. This process usually begins when Sally and Donna give the original will to George. George must then apply for a “probate certificate” by submitting an application to the court along with the original will. This application is called an “Application for a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee,” or a “probate application.”
Once the court reviews George’s application and is satisfied that the will is valid, and that no other wills of Bob’s have been filed with the court, it will issue George a “probate certificate.” With this certificate, George can now begin to manage Bob’s estate. This entire process is known as “probate.”
*It is important to note that there are circumstances where probate is not required. For the purposes of this blog, I will be using an example where probate is required.
Probate Certificate aka “Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee”
A “Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee,” also known as a “probate certificate,” is a document issued by the court that authorizes a person (the executor) to manage an estate.
Example: George needs to close Bob’s bank accounts. He goes to TD Bank and explains that he is the executor of Bob’s estate and wants to access and close his accounts. Since George isn’t listed as an account holder, the bank has no record of him and asks for proof that he’s authorized to act on Bob’s behalf. George must provide a copy of his probate certificate issued by the court to prove he has authority to close the accounts.
Beneficiaries
A beneficiary is a person(s), charity, or organization who receives a gift (aka an inheritance) from someone’s estate after they die.
Example: Bob’s will names his two children, Sally and Donna, as beneficiaries. According to Bob’s will, each of them will receive $100,000.00 from his estate. George is responsible for making this happen. George will pay Sally and Donna each their $100,000.00 using money from Bob’s estate.
This is just one example of how an individual’s estate may be administered after their death. There are many other situations to consider. For example, if a person dies without leaving a will (dying “intestate”), the process for applying for probate will be different. Or, if a will exists but its validity is challenged by a beneficiary or an interested party, the estate may have to go through legal proceedings (“litigation”). Regardless of the specific circumstances, it is important to understand the basic principles of estates in case you ever find yourself responsible for managing a loved one’s estate.
Stacie Chrysanthopoulos
Nothing contained in this post constitutes legal advice or establishes a solicitor-client relationship. If you have any questions regarding your legal rights or legal obligations, you should consult a lawyer.
Mar 19, 2026
A recent decision from the Toronto Estates List has brought into focus the challenges of acting as Section 3 counsel. In Groves v. Groves, 2026 ONSC 1206 (“Groves”), the applicants, Lori Groves and Mark Groves, sought guardianship over their father, John Groves (“John”), and an Order allowing them to apprehend John from his residence where he lived with the respondent, Lourdes Palmer.
John and the respondent had been in an intimate relationship since January 2023. The respondent, who was self-represented, did not seek guardianship over John but argued instead that a neutral guardian ought to be appointed. The respondent also alleged that John’s wishes were that he be protected from the applicants.
The applicants alleged that John, an 85-year-old man diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, had become involved in a predatory relationship with the respondent. The respondent removed John on three occasions from the retirement community where he had previously resided and where he received daily care. She also took John to open a new bank account and arranged for him to move into her home in Barrie. Beginning in March 2024, the respondent prevented the applicants from communicating directly with John and insisted that all communication “between John and his children or friends go through her”.
John had previously undergone multiple capacity assessments and there was extensive medical evidence surrounding John’s cognition and memory. For example, John was found to be incapable of managing property on February 10, 2023 by a capacity assessor. In August 2023, John’s family physician found he had progressive cognitive and functional decline and was vulnerable to “financial and medical abuse”. On June 15, 2025, John was found incapable of instructing legal counsel by another capacity assessor.
Section 3 Counsel’s Involvement
In May 2024, the respondent arranged for John to be represented by counsel. That private retainer was later converted into a section 3 counsel retainer by the Public Guardian and Trustee. Throughout the guardianship proceedings and at the final hearing, section 3 counsel expressed John’s wishes to remain with the respondent and to have access to his funds for travel with the respondent. Section 3 counsel also opposed the application for guardianship and submitted that a third-party attorney for property be appointed to manage John’s property instead. In advance of the application hearing, section 3 counsel filed a letter of wishes containing “John Groves’ position” and a statement of law. As a preliminary issue, the Court deliberated as to whether section 3 counsel’s letter and statement of law should be struck from the record.
The Court analyzed this issue in the context of section 3 counsel’s mandate under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, S.O. 1990, c. 30 (the “SDA”) and the applicable case law.
Apart from providing for counsel to be arranged for individuals whose capacity is in question, section 3 of the SDA explicitly deems the individual in question to have capacity to retain and instruct counsel. Early decisions relied upon this deeming provision to differentiate between the role of section 3 counsel and a litigation guardian. Although not relied upon in Groves, in Banton v. Banton 1998 ONSC 14926 (“Banton”), the Court found:
[34] Even in cases where the client is deemed to have capacity to retain and instruct counsel pursuant to section 3(1) of the Act, I do not believe that counsel is in the position of a litigation guardian with authority to make decisions in the client’s interests. Counsel must take instructions from the client and must not, in my view, act if satisfied that capacity to give instructions is lacking.
In Groves, the Court relied significantly on Dawson v Dawson 2020 ONSC 6724 (“Dawson”) which, in keeping with Banton, found that section 3 counsel and a litigation guardian each protect the interests of vulnerable people in distinct ways:
[33] Gomery J. noted that many s. 3 counsel make a tremendous effort to discern their client’s wishes and often provide the court with very helpful insight as a result. However, if they are unable to understand what a client wants, they cannot make decisions on that person’s behalf. By contrast, a litigation guardian stands in the shoes of someone under disability. They do not take instructions from the person under disability but make substitute decisions on their behalf, in accordance with their obligations and powers set out in r. 7.05.
Both Banton and Dawson demonstrate the inherent difficulty in acting as section 3 counsel. Section 3 counsel must continuously exercise their discretion in assessing whether and how their client’s wishes can be taken as instructions. This exercise is complicated in situations where capacity is fluid and where a client is vulnerable to being influenced by parties to the litigation. Underlying it all, lawyers acting as section 3 counsel may find it difficult to reconcile the limits of their role with ensuring that vulnerable individuals have a voice in proceedings that directly affect them.
The issue in Groves was that the Court found that section 3 counsel had overstepped their mandate by acting more like a litigation guardian. The Court found that, as of at least June 2025, John was incapable of giving instructions. A capacity assessment at that time found that John appeared unaware of any conflict with the applicants and the fact that he was represented by section 3 counsel. However, John still maintained an opposition to the application and his wish that section 3 counsel oppose the application despite having no memory of discussing the issue with section 3 counsel.
The Court dealt with the issue as a “matter of fact” finding that, because section 3 counsel could not obtain capable instructions from John, she was “without capable instructions notwithstanding the deeming provision in the SDA” (paragraph 44 of the decision).
On that basis, the Court gave little weight to section 3 counsel’s letter and the statement of law. The Court appeared very concerned at how section 3 counsel took legal positions which were consistent with the type of position that the respondent “would have been expected to take”.
As a matter of form, the Court also took issue with section 3 counsel seeking substantive relief and making assertions of fact within the statement of law, despite John’s apparent incapacity and no originating process or notice of motion to ground the substantive relief that was sought.
Ultimately, the applicants were successful, and the Court was especially unforgiving in its costs award as section 3 counsel’s costs were fixed to the costs that had been incurred prior to the assessment of incapacity on June 15, 2025.
Key Takeaways
Groves demonstrates that the role of section 3 counsel is a difficult one, existing in tension between:
- the duty to advocate for vulnerable individuals;
- the need to monitor capacity, which is often fluid; and
- the challenge of distinguishing between a client’s wishes and instructions that can properly form the basis of a legal position.
Groves adds to this tension. Other decisions have recognized that capacity assessments are not infallible and that capacity is fluid, and have accordingly treated the deeming provision as a “shield” affording section 3 counsel discretion to advocate notwithstanding an assessment of incapacity. For example, in Righter v. Righter, an unreported case, which was relied upon in Miziolek v. Miziolek, 2018 ONSC 2841 (CanLII) the Court found that despite an individual’s incapacity, section 3 counsel “still had a role to play – testing the jurisdiction of the court, authority to make orders, and making submissions on the evidence.”
Groves seems to direct section 3 counsel to immediately limit their involvement where there has been a specific assessment that the individual lacks capacity to give instructions or when there is overwhelming evidence of incapacity. Respectfully, this direction potentially undermines the role of section 3 counsel. A capacity assessment concluding that an individual lacks capacity to give instructions should not prevent section 3 counsel from expressing or acting upon what they deem to be clear wishes and instructions at a later date. To hold otherwise potentially marginalizes the role of section 3 counsel and is contrary to the purpose and function of section 3’s deeming provision.
This is not to say that Groves is inconsistent with section 3 and prior case law. Rather, Groves’ framing of John’s incapacity as a “matter of fact” that prevented section 3 counsel from taking a position or acting meaningfully after June 2025 obscures the underlying issue. At its core, Groves turned on the fact that the Court deeply disagreed with how section 3 counsel interpreted and exercised their role. In that sense, Groves is a testament to the precariousness of acting as section 3 counsel, and the importance of caution and investigation when obtaining a client’s wishes or instructions and acting on them.
In Groves, the medical evidence was extensive and strongly indicated that John’s wishes were unreliable and could not be taken as capable instructions on the issues in the application. On the other hand, can we fault section 3 counsel for their advocacy, and for acting upon wishes that appeared to be consistent throughout their involvement?
Matias Gutierrez
Nothing contained in this post constitutes legal advice or establishes a solicitor-client relationship. If you have any questions regarding your legal rights or legal obligations, you should consult a lawyer.
Mar 12, 2026
Now that many court appearances can be done virtually, lawyers have more flexibility in the files they can take on. In the past, a simple 15-minute scheduling appearance could mean hours of travel, so we had to be cautious about accepting matters in distant jurisdictions. Even though courts are gradually returning to in-person hearings, many procedural attendances are still conducted remotely, so lawyers are less likely to limit their practice to a single city.
One consequence of this is that we now need to understand how to navigate multiple administrative regions across Ontario. Each region has its own practice directions, booking systems, and unwritten customs, and those differences can easily cause delay or frustration if they are unfamiliar.
This blog is the first in a series where I will break down how to book a motion in various cities and towns across Ontario.
Short Motions (under 1 hour):
Although Brampton is part of the Central West Region, the practice directions create a few Brampton‑specific rules, starting with how short motions are booked.
Unlike Milton, Orangeville, Guelph, Owen Sound, and Walkerton, you cannot book a short motion in Brampton by emailing the court to request available dates. Instead, counsel must schedule short motions using the court’s online Calendly system.
Things to keep in mind for Short Motions:
– The practice directions include a helpful tip sheet on using Calendly, linked here
– Self-represented parties that do not have the technology or ability to access the internet may schedule the Short Motion by telephone
– Any cancellations or adjournments using Calendly must be on consent of the parties
– Cancellations and adjournments will not be accepted on Calendly within 10 days of the scheduled hearing date
Long Motions (over 1 hour):
To book a long motion, the parties must first adhere to a timetable for completion of all the necessary steps (i.e. delivery of materials, cross-examinations, etc.) to be considered “ready” to proceed with the motion hearing.
If the parties agree on a timetable, it can be sent to the court with a request that it be endorsed and made into a Court Order.
If the parties cannot agree on a timetable within 45 days of service of the moving party’s motion record, any party can request an attendance at Triage Court to set a timetable. This is done by completing the Requisition to Attend Long Motion Triage Court Form, linked here, and emailing it to SCJtrialofficebrampton@ontario.ca. In Brampton, triage court is held every Tuesday at 9:00 a.m.
Once the timetable has been set and complied with, the parties are considered “ready” to book their long motion hearing date. This is also done at triage court, using the same requisition and email process that applies if the parties cannot agree on a timetable and must attend triage court to set one.
Things to keep in mind for Triage Court:
– Gowns are not required at triage court
– Each matter at triage court is limited to 10 minutes
– It is the responsibility of the party scheduling the triage court date to inform the other parties immediately in writing
– Do not ask the judge for a motion date unless all of the steps in the timetable are adhered to – it will not go well
Staying current with the latest regional notices and practice directions helps avoid unnecessary delays and ensures that matters proceed smoothly. Stay tuned for my next blog post, where I walk through the process for another city or town in a different administrative region.
Please remember that scheduling procedures change frequently. Always review the most recent Central West Region practice direction and any local notices specific to Brampton before scheduling.
Colleen Dowling
Nothing contained in this post constitutes legal advice or establishes a solicitor-client relationship. If you have any questions regarding your legal rights or legal obligations, you should consult a lawyer.
