Click here to sign up for our free daily newsletter
(Image Credit: ID 143558745 © Khwaneigq | Dreamstime.com)
settlement scrutiny

$5.6M fee tied to Sweetgrass settlement blocked from immediate payout by appeal court

Jun 17, 2026 | 5:00 PM

More than $5 million tied to Sweetgrass First Nation’s landmark Treaty settlement will remain under court protection after Saskatchewan’s highest court ruled the disputed legal bill behind the claim must be reviewed before any money is paid out.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by Maurice Law Barristers & Solicitors, which argued it was entitled to immediate payment of a $5.6 million contingency fee connected to the First Nation’s $139.7 million settlement with Canada.

The ruling means the money will remain set aside while an independent assessment determines whether the amount claimed by the law firm is fair and reasonable.

For Sweetgrass, the decision is significant because it prevents millions of dollars from being paid out before that review takes place.

The dispute stems from legal work Maurice Law performed while representing the First Nation in its successful Treaty claim against Canada.

Under a retainer agreement signed in 2019, the firm agreed to provide legal services at reduced hourly rates along with a contingency fee based on any compensation recovered through the claim.

While Maurice Law was still representing Sweetgrass, Canada offered to settle the claim for $139,667,207. Sweetgrass later hired new counsel and finalized a settlement with Canada in September 2024 for the same amount.

Maurice Law argues that because the settlement was ultimately reached on terms offered while it remained counsel, it is entitled to a contingency fee of $5,586,768.28.

Sweetgrass does not dispute that Maurice Law should be compensated for its work. However, the First Nation argues the amount being claimed should first be independently reviewed.

In court filings, Sweetgrass described the fee as “exceptionally large and disproportionate to the legal work anticipated to be performed and the legal work actually performed.”

Writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, Justice Jeffery Kalmakoff said Saskatchewan law generally requires disputed legal bills to go through an assessment process before payment is ordered.

“Maurice Law’s originating application was, at its core, entirely about the enforcement of an unpaid bill,” Kalmakoff wrote.

The court agreed with an earlier King’s Bench ruling that the assessment should proceed before any decision is made about whether Maurice Law is entitled to the money it seeks.

The Court of Appeal did not decide whether Maurice Law is entitled to the full fee it claims. Instead, the next stage of the case will focus on determining whether the amount sought is fair and reasonable and, if so, how much the firm should ultimately receive.

The appeal was dismissed, with costs awarded to Sweetgrass First Nation.

Kenneth.Cheung@pattisonmedia.com