Liquefied natural gas being loaded on Asia-bound tanker docked in Kitimat, B.C.
The GasLog Glasgow is being loaded with LNG produced in B.C., a spokesperson for the project said Monday.
British Columbia Coast Pilots said two of their members boarded the tanker near Triple Island on the remote northern B.C. coast and navigated the vessel on a 15-hour, nearly 300-kilometre journey to Kitimat.
'The arrival of the GasLog Glasgow at the LNG Canada terminal in Kitimat is a historic moment, and the BC Coast Pilots are proud to have supported this milestone,' said Capt. Steve Kennedy in a written statement.
The pilots rotated shifts to ensure the one on duty was alert throughout the voyage. They were escorted by a tug purpose-built by HaiSea Marine, a company majority-owned by the Haisla Nation.
'This successful operation reflects more than 10 years of preparation and collaboration with government, industry, and coastal First Nations to ensure vessel operations are safe and to help minimize impacts on the environment and coastal communities along the route,' Kennedy said.
LNG Canada is a joint venture between Shell and Malaysia's Petronas, PetroChina, Japan's Mitsubishi Corp. and South Korea's KOGAS. Its first phase is expected to produce 14 million tonnes of gas a year and a second phase under consideration would double output.
It's been billed by the federal government as the biggest private-sector investment in Canadian history — $40 billion between the port operation, the northeast B.C. gas fields supplying it and the pipeline in between.
Liquefied natural gas, or LNG, is gas that has been chilled at temperatures of -162 C into a liquid state, enabling it to be transported overseas in specialized tankers.
Gas produced in Western Canada could sell for a much higher price in Asia than if it were to remain landlocked, and advocates say securing new buyers would reduce Canada's reliance on the United States.
Until now, Canada's only export market for its gas has been the United States, via pipeline. The trade relationship between the two countries has been rattled by U.S. President Donald Trump's evolving tariffs and musings about annexing Canada.
Other LNG projects under construction include Cedar LNG, a joint-venture between Pembina Pipeline and the Haisla Nation and the Woodfibre LNG project near Squamish. A final investment decision has yet to be made on the Ksi Lisims facility near the border with Alaska, a partnership between Nisga'a Nation, Rockies LNG and Western LNG.
LNG has been touted as a 'bridge' or 'transition' fuel to supplant coal as a power source in emerging economies.
But Nichole Dusyk, senior policy adviser with the International Institute of Sustainable Development, said continued investment in fossil fuels puts Canada's economy, taxpayers and climate commitments at risk.
'As the shift to low-cost renewables accelerates, any further investment in LNG means doubling down on a volatile industry that is already showing signs of oversupply and shrinking market opportunities, including in Asia.'
This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 30, 2025.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indianapolis Star
an hour ago
- Indianapolis Star
Viemed Completes Acquisition of Lehan's Medical Equipment Anticipates Updating its Full Year 2025 Outlook for the Acquisition with Second Quarter 2025 Financial Results
LAFAYETTE, LA / ACCESS Newswire Viemed Healthcare, Inc. (the 'Company' or 'Viemed') (NASDAQ: VMD), an in-home clinical care provider of post-acute respiratory healthcare equipment and services in the United States, announced that it has completed the previously disclosed acquisition of Illinois-based Lehan's Medical Equipment ('Lehan') for a base purchase price of $26 million, subject to customary adjustments, plus estimated contingent payments of $2.2 million. 'We are pleased to close the acquisition of Lehan and bring this talented and highly motivated team into the Viemed family,' said Viemed Chief Executive Officer Casey Hoyt. 'Lehan's 80-year track record and brand recognition in a large and fast-growing market along with its preferred contracts and fulfillment expertise make for a powerful combination with our national scale, unique care delivery model and existing payer relationships to serve a broader patient population.' In 2024, Lehan generated net revenues of approximately $25.7 million and Adjusted EBITDA of approximately $7.4 million. See 'Non-GAAP Financial Measures' for a discussion of Adjusted EBITDA. Viemed funded the acquisition through a combination of cash on hand and borrowings from its existing credit facilities. Viemed anticipates increasing its previously issued full-year 2025 guidance range to account for the expected contribution from this acquisition when it reports earnings results for the quarter ended June 30, 2025. Lehan's Medical Equipment is a healthcare provider offering home medical equipment and products for women's health, including breast pumps. The organization specializes in promoting wellness through a variety of healthcare services. Lehan also provides rental, sales, and resupply of CPAPs and other respiratory devices, as well as sales of other medical equipment. Lehan currently has three full-service locations in the Northern Illinois area and three sleep/CPAP set up locations in the West Chicagoland area, including one in Wisconsin. ABOUT VIEMED HEALTHCARE, INC. Viemed is an in-home clinical care provider of post-acute respiratory healthcare equipment and services in the United States, including non-invasive ventilators (NIV), sleep therapy, staffing, and other complementary products and services. Viemed focuses on efficient and effective in-home treatment with clinical practitioners providing therapy, education and counseling to patients in their homes using high-touch and high-tech services. Visit our website at For further information, please contact: Investor Relations ir@ Tripp Sullivan SCR Partners, LLC 615-942-7077 Trae Fitzgerald Chief Financial Officer Viemed Healthcare, Inc. 337-504-3802 Forward-Looking Statements Certain statements contained in this press release may constitute 'forward-looking statements' within the meaning of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 or 'forward-looking information' as such term is defined in applicable Canadian securities legislation (collectively, 'forward-looking statements'). Often, but not always, forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of words such as 'plans', 'expects', 'is expected', 'budget', 'potential', 'scheduled', 'estimates', 'forecasts', 'intends', 'anticipates', 'believes', 'projects', or the negatives thereof or variations of such words and phrases or statements that certain actions, events or results 'will', 'should', 'may', 'could', 'would', 'might' or 'will be taken', 'occur' or 'be achieved' or the negative of these terms or comparable terminology. All statements other than statements of historical fact, including those that express, or involve discussions as to, expectations, beliefs, plans, objectives, assumptions or future events or performance, including the Company's expectations about its acquisition of Lehan's Medical Equipment, such as contingent payments, anticipated benefits, and anticipated updates to the Company's 2025 financial guidance are not historical facts and may be forward-looking statements and may involve estimates, assumptions and uncertainties that could cause actual results or outcomes to differ materially from those expressed in the forward-looking statements. Such statements reflect the Company's current views and intentions with respect to future events, and current information available to the Company, and are subject to certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions. Many factors could cause the actual results, performance or achievements that may be expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements to vary from those described herein should one or more of these risks or uncertainties materialize. These factors include, without limitation: the general business, market and economic conditions in the regions in which the we operate; significant capital requirements and operating risks that we may be subject to; our ability to implement business strategies and pursue business opportunities; volatility in the market price of our common shares; the state of the capital markets; the availability of funds and resources to pursue operations; inflation; reductions in reimbursement rates and audits of reimbursement claims by various governmental and private payor entities; dependence on few payors; possible new drug discoveries; dependence on key suppliers; granting of permits and licenses in a highly regulated business; competition; disruptions in or attacks (including cyber-attacks) on our information technology, internet, network access or other voice or data communications systems or services; the evolution of various types of fraud or other criminal behavior to which we are exposed; difficulty integrating newly acquired businesses; the impact of new and changes to, or application of, current laws and regulations; the overall difficult litigation and regulatory environment; increased competition; increased funding costs and market volatility due to market illiquidity and competition for funding; critical accounting estimates and changes to accounting standards, policies, and methods used by us; and the occurrence of natural and unnatural catastrophic events or health epidemics or concerns, and claims resulting from such events or concerns, as well as other general economic, market and business conditions; and other factors beyond our control; as well as those risk factors discussed or referred to in the Company's disclosure documents filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the 'SEC') available on the SEC's website at including the Company's most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K and Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, and with the securities regulatory authorities in certain provinces of Canada available at Should any factor affect the Company in an unexpected manner, or should assumptions underlying the forward-looking statements prove incorrect, the actual results or events may differ materially from the results or events predicted. Any such forward-looking statements are expressly qualified in their entirety by this cautionary statement. Moreover, the Company does not assume responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of such forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements included in this press release are made as of the date of this press release and the Company undertakes no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, other than as required by applicable law. Non-GAAP Financial Measures This press release refers to 'Adjusted EBITDA' which is a non-GAAP financial measure that does not have a standardized meaning prescribed by U.S. GAAP. The Company's presentation of Adjusted EBITDA may not be comparable to similarly titled measures used by other companies. Adjusted EBITDA is defined as net income (loss) before interest expense, income tax expense (benefit), depreciation and amortization, and other adjustments, including adjustments relating to the proposed acquisition of Lehan. Company management believes Adjusted EBITDA provides helpful information to analyze Lehan's operating performance, including a view of Lehan's business that is not dependent on the impact of Lehan's capitalization structure and the exclusion of items that are not part of Lehan's recurring operations, including the impacts of the Company's proposed acquisition of Lehan. Accordingly, Company management believes that Adjusted EBITDA provides useful information in understanding and evaluating Lehan's historical operating performance in the same manner as it analyzes the Company's operating performance. SOURCE: Viemed Healthcare, Inc.
CNBC
an hour ago
- CNBC
Trump announces Vietnam trade deal, 20% tariff on its imports to U.S.
President Donald Trump said Wednesday that the United States has struck a trade deal with Vietnam that includes a 20% tariff on the southeast Asian country's imports to the U.S. Trump's announcement on Truth Social said that the deal will give the U.S. tariff-free access to Vietnam's markets. Vietnam also agreed that goods would be hit with a 40% tariff rate if they originated in another country and were transferred to Vietnam for final shipment to the United States. The process, known as transshipping, is used to circumvent trade barriers. China, a top exporter to the U.S., has reportedly used Vietnam as a transshipment hub. Trump wrote that "Vietnam will pay" that 20% duty, but tariffs are taxes on foreign goods that are paid by the importers of those products. The agreement was unveiled less than a week before a 90-day pause on many of Trump's so-called reciprocal tariffs was set to expire, sending U.S. duties on imports from dozens of countries soaring. Under that protectionist trade scheme, Vietnamese imports to the U.S. were subject to a 46% blanket tariff. That rate was lowered to 10% during the 90-day interim. Raising the tariff on Vietnamese goods to 20% will hike costs for U.S. importers, which could be passed on to consumers or suppliers. The S&P 500 nevertheless rose slightly on news of the trade deal. "It is my Great Honor to announce that I have just made a Trade Deal with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam after speaking with To Lam, the Highly Respected General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam. It will be a Great Deal of Cooperation between our two Countries. The Terms are that Vietnam will pay the United States a 20% Tariff on any and all goods sent into our Territory, and a 40% Tariff on any Transshipping. In return, Vietnam will do something that they have never done before, give the United States of America TOTAL ACCESS to their Markets for Trade. In other words, they will "OPEN THEIR MARKET TO THE UNITED STATES," meaning that, we will be able to sell our product into Vietnam at ZERO Tariff. It is my opinion that the SUV or, as it is sometimes referred to, Large Engine Vehicle, which does so well in the United States, will be a wonderful addition to the various product lines within Vietnam. Dealing with General Secretary To Lam, which I did personally, was an absolute pleasure. Thank you for your attention to this matter!" It was unclear from Trump's post when the deal will take effect, or if it has been officially signed by both parties. Trump has signaled that he may ignore or revise the upcoming deadline for his reciprocal tariffs to snap back higher. The 90-day pause, which lowered tariffs on nearly all other countries to a blanket 10% rate, was imposed in early April to give countries breathing room while they negotiate deals with the U.S. With the deadline approaching, the Trump administration has only struck revised trade frameworks with China and the United Kingdom, though it has repeatedly said the U.S. is close to deals with numerous other countries. Vietnam, whose exports to the U.S. reportedly comprised 30% of its gross domestic product last year, is especially vulnerable to Trump's tariffs. Critics of Trump's unpredictable tariff policies warn that the duties create economic uncertainty and will result in higher prices for U.S. consumers. The Trump administration and its defenders counter that tariffs do not cause inflation and note that the president's duties have brought in billions of dollars to the U.S. government. A pricing model created for CNBC this month by retail consulting group AlixPartners found that a 10% U.S. tariff on Vietnamese goods would cause the price of an imported men's sweater to rise by about 8%. Under the 46% tariff Trump initially slapped on Vietnam, the price of that same sweater would rise roughly 35%, the group found. U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell said Tuesday that officials expect the impacts of Trump's tariffs will start to show up more during the summer months. Prices on certain items, including apparel and footwear, are already ticking higher as a result of the tariffs, CNBC has reported. Some analysts believe the lack of a widespread impact on U.S. prices so far is the result of pre-tariff stockpiling by companies, as well as the time it takes for those tariffs to show up in the economy.
Hamilton Spectator
2 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Millions in ‘unfair' legal fees part of a broader problem in First Nations law
Legal fee agreements between a First Nation and its former law firm were unfair and, in some cases, unenforceable, a Saskatchewan judge concluded. Some legal experts say the issue is more common and causes more harm among First Nations than with the general population. The decision, released Tuesday, settles a 2021 dispute over millions of dollars in legal fees and penalties tied to historic claims against the federal government. 'This was obviously a big win for Beardy's and Okemasis Cree Nation, but this is also a big win for First Nations generally,' said Edwin Ananas, chief of the nation, in a recent press release. In 1999, Calgary-based Maurice Law, which describes itself as 'the first and largest Indigenous-owned national law firm in Canada,' was brought in to help prepare claims for treaty payments withheld by Canada after the 1885 Northwest Resistance. At the time, Canada had labelled the nation and other Prairie First Nations as 'Rebellion Nations' and cut off their treaty rights as punishment for their supposed role in the uprising. By 2005, the communities had signed formal retainer agreements with Maurice Law. The Beardy's case was chosen as a test to set a legal precedent, making it easier for others to succeed. Over the years, the legal work expanded to cover multiple claims — annuities, salaries, agricultural benefits and flood losses. The law firm recommended its clients take out litigation loans and insurance to cover legal costs as the cases dragged on. By 2015, Beardy's had won a $4.5-million judgment for withheld annuities, and in 2024, the nation reached a $4.1-million settlement with Canada for unpaid salaries to chiefs and council. However, concerns about legal fees and financing grew. According to the court document , Ananas and the council were worried about rising legal bills and debt from loans and insurance. In 2021, they ended their contract with Maurice Law. After the termination, the law firm demanded more than $1.1 million in fees plus a share of future contingency payments — even though it had already been paid through loans and insurance. The agreements included what the court called 'poison pill' clauses: if the clients switched lawyers before a settlement, they could owe up to half the expected contingency fee, plus other charges. 'The penalty or 'poison pill' provisions in the retainer agreements are designed to punish and discourage the client from terminating Maurice or suffer severe financial consequences,' the judge wrote. The nation argued the agreements were confusing and didn't clearly say which claims were covered or what fees would be charged. The court found these penalty clauses unfair and ruled the law firm should be paid a reasonable amount for the services they provided, rather than the specific fees in the disputed contracts. The judge ordered Maurice Law to reimburse Beardy's more than $826,000, as well as $100,000 in enhanced costs, an additional penalty for the unfair agreements. About $492,000 — the 12 per cent contingency fee claimed by the firm — remains in trust until the final amount is decided. The court also found troubling billing practices. Records showed one lawyer claimed 25 hours in a single day, and the nation was charged 338 hours just to draft a declaration of claim. The judge found many of the same problems with contracts Maurice Law had with another First Nation, One Arrow, including confusing terms and harsh penalty clauses, and ruled those agreements were also unfair or unenforceable in part. The judge did not order Maurice Law to pay a specific sum back to One Arrow at this stage. Instead, the court said any fees Maurice Law claims from One Arrow must be based only on the fair value of the legal work actually done. If One Arrow and the law firm can't agree on what's fair, they can return to court to have the fees reviewed again. In a statement, Maurice Law said working on contingency is a way for the firm to take on clients who can't afford to pay up front. 'We have worked for decades on claims with no guarantee of success. We have spent thousands of hours on claims that were unsuccessful or have not yet been resolved. We believe this is fair – we are only paid a contingency fee when we win. In doing so, we enhance access to justice for Indigenous communities in need. When we are successful, we are paid a percentage of the award to our client – typically in the 4 to 12 per cent range, which is standard in our industry, and lower than what many other firms practicing aboriginal law charge,' the firm wrote. Maurice Law said it intends to appeal the judicial decision. 'We acknowledge a small number of our fee arrangements were recently overturned by the Saskatchewan Court of King's Bench. We believe the decision of the Court of King's Bench includes errors of law and we intend to appeal this decision to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.' The firm said it donates a portion of its contingency fees back to First Nations, amounting to $2 million so far in 2025. Indigenous Services Canada did not respond to a request for comment by deadline. Legal experts who spoke to Canada's National Observer following last Tuesday's Maurice Law case say that while contingency fee arrangements were designed to improve access to justice, they have often led to predatory practices, windfall profits for lawyers and unfair outcomes that disproportionately harm First Nations clients. This issue is especially common in Saskatchewan because the province has seen a surge in large, complex First Nations litigation and settlement activity in recent decades — drawing more law firms to the region in search of substantial payouts, said Sara Mainville, managing partner of JFK Law. 'There are more and more law firms that are really attracted to this work because of the large payouts,' Mainville said. She pointed out that the principle of 'sharing' in Indigenous culture is sometimes taken advantage of by lawyers. Some firms have justified large bonuses or 'contingency fees' as a way of sharing in the community's success. 'First Nations feel like they should share, because they've been successful,' Mainville said. '[But] those don't really align with the fact that as lawyers under our law societies, we get paid. We get paid for the work we do, we don't necessarily get bonuses.' Cynthia Westaway, senior counsel at First Peoples Law LLP and former founder of Westaway Law Group, said these issues are especially acute for First Nations — who often come to the negotiation table from poverty resulting from the loss of lands and other historic wrongs. 'Professional support should never take advantage of the limited resources and lack of leverage of First Nations to negotiate a fair contract,' she said. Westaway said contingency fees make sense in certain class actions, such as the recent cases involving the forced sterilization of Indigenous women, but are less appropriate for claims already accepted by Canada for negotiation of compensation owed. 'While there may be situations where contingencies are reasonable, l have never had to go that route to successfully reach large settlements,' Westaway said. Westaway said historically, Canada didn't fund historic claims. Now it usually covers the cost of reports and provides about $110,000 per claim each year for negotiations. Given this support, contingencies are rarely needed, and courts are unlikely to find fees of five to 20 per cent reasonable on large settlements, which often range from $200,000 to $700,000. These communities have already waited 120 to 150 years to be compensated for their losses, she said. However, delayed funding forces councils to enter into contingency fee agreements to keep their cases moving. She said in all cases, First Nations should not have to go to court over legal fees. Instead, any past contingencies should be reviewed for reasonableness and updated to ensure First Nations are paying reasonable fees in line with the case law. 'Canada should be providing funding earlier and more consistently, so there's no need for a contingency,' Westaway said. Mainville said in her own practice, contingency fees are used 'when there's no other option' but 'taking an unfair cut of damages that are justly given to that generation of citizens of that nation' is 'distasteful' and undermines the purpose of reconciliation. Likewise, Mainville said that 'poison pill' clauses are not common in most law firms. 'It's not a good model retainer, not best practice to use those kinds of [clauses] that suggest that there's sort of a poison pill if you try to terminate that law firm.' Mainville said. 'All my clients have the right to terminate me, they all have the right to seek another lawyer and there's no penalty for them going elsewhere.' Westaway agreed — 'No First Nation should ever be punished for choosing a different service provider,' she said. In its statement, Maurice Law blamed its competitors for 'encouraging clients to challenge our fees.' 'While they claim to be doing this for noble reasons, the truth is they are being opportunistic. Many of our competitors would never have taken these claims on several years ago, when the client could not afford to pay and the prospect of success was uncertain. These firms wait until Maurice Law has advanced the claim to the finish line, after years of work with no or minimal compensation, and then attempt to lure our clients away at the last minute, when success is guaranteed due to the hard work of Maurice Law.' Indigenous organizations are pushing for urgent reforms to how law societies regulate legal fees charged to First Nations. In December 2023, the Assembly of First Nations passed a resolution demanding that the Federation of Law Societies and all provincial and territorial law societies create rules — developed in partnership with First Nations — to ensure legal fees are fair and reasonable. The Indigenous Bar Association has called for specific measures, including caps on the percentage lawyers can charge in contingency fee agreements, standardized forms for contingency fee arrangements, mandatory training for lawyers working with Indigenous clients and bans on fees that aren't justified by the actual legal work performed, rather than simply being tied to the size of settlements. Requests for an interview were sent to the AFN and bar association, but no responses were received by deadline. Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada told Canada's National Observer it cannot comment on legal fees charged to First Nations by independent law firms. The department says it does not provide legal advice to First Nations during negotiations, nor does it advise them on which firms to use. Lawyers are regulated by law societies in each province and are accountable to their clients. A spokesperson for MLT Aikins LLP, the firm representing Bready's in the matter involving Maurice Law, declined to comment, saying Maurice Law has initiated a defamation lawsuit in Alberta against the firm and three MLT Aikins lawyers in their personal capacity. In an emailed statement, the Law Society of Saskatchewan said it is aware of the court decision and is reviewing it. The society said that its authority to investigate legal fees is tied to the courts under The Legal Profession Act, 1990, meaning the courts first decide if a contingency agreement or legal fee is fair and reasonable before the Law Society can investigate for potential breaches of its Code of Professional Conduct. The Law Society noted it provides guidance to lawyers through practice advisors, management courses, and ethics rulings and participates in national reviews of ethical rules — including those addressing the needs of First Nations, Inuit and Métis clients — through the Federation of Law Societies' Standing Committee on the Model Code of Professional Conduct. 'This shouldn't be happening in today's society ... I hope a lot of other First Nations review and take into consideration the path moving forward,' Ananas, Beardy's and Okemasis Cree Nation chief, told Canada's National Observer. He said the court's decision sets a precedent for Indigenous communities across Canada to assert their rights so more settlement funds can be directed to community priorities instead of legal fees. 'At the end of the day, we're saving millions and millions of dollars. Which First Nation out there doesn't need millions to be saved? There are so many shortfalls we overcome on a daily, yearly basis. Fighting for that extra dollar was definitely well worth it.' The Saskatchewan judge's ruling is part of a broader trend of First Nations challenging the fairness and transparency of legal fee arrangements, especially in high-stakes, historic claims against the Crown. In 2024, Mikisew Cree First Nation sued Maurice Law, claiming the firm took over $8 million in legal fees from their 'Cows and Ploughs' settlement but failed to provide proper invoices or records. Mikisew says Maurice Law promised to return two per cent of the settlement (about $2.7 million) but only paid back $250,000, and then stopped. The First Nation also says it was not given a chance to challenge the fees at the time, and Maurice Law's handling of loans and insurance was unclear. Mikisew is now asking the court to order the return of at least $2.25 million and to review all legal fees paid to the firm. In 2025, Sweetgrass First Nation went to court after Maurice Law demanded immediate payment of over $5.4 million in legal fees from a settlement trust. Sweetgrass had already ended its contract with the firm and wanted the fees reviewed first. The judge ruled that Sweetgrass's right to have the fees assessed comes first, and Maurice Law cannot demand instant payment before a review. The court also found that the law firm's agreements did not give it a special claim to the settlement money and ordered the funds to be held until the fees can be fairly assessed. In 2016, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal found that Maurice Law had already been hired on an hourly basis to represent Sakimay First Nation in land and flooding claims, but after a multi-million dollar settlement was nearly finalized, the firm pushed Sakimay to sign a new deal that would give Maurice Law a three per cent bonus on the settlement. The court decided this bonus agreement was unfair and unenforceable because Maurice Law misled Sakimay about what other lawyers were charging, failed to advise them to seek independent legal advice, and did not clearly explain that the original hourly contract already covered the new work. Beyond Maurice Law, the push for fairness and transparency in legal fees is happening across the country and involves other law firms as well. In 2024, two Ontario First Nations — Atikameksheng Anishnawbek and Garden River — challenged a massive $510-million legal bill related to the $10-billion Robinson Huron Treaty settlement, arguing the amount was excessive and should be reviewed before lawyers are paid. In Alberta, Tallcree First Nation challenged a 20 per cent contingency fee agreement with Rath & Company that would have paid the law firm $11.5 million from a $57.6-million agricultural benefits settlement. The court found this fee was unreasonable, given the expected work and outcome, especially since the actual legal work was valued at less than $400,000. In 2022, the Alberta Court of Appeal upheld a lower court's decision to slash the fee to $3 million, ordering the law firm to refund more than $8.5 million to Tallcree. — With files from Matteo Cimellaro Sonal Gupta / Local Journalism Initiative / Canada's National Observer Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
