908077 Alberta Ltd. v. 1313608 Alberta Ltd.

• Jurisdiction: Alberta
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Judge: Brown,Rooke
• Neutral Citation: 2015 ABQB 108
• Citation: 2015 ABQB 108,(2015), 610 A.R. 270 (QB),610 AR 270,(2015), 610 AR 270 (QB),610 A.R. 270
• Date: 20 January 2015
• Subject Matter: PRACTICE,COMPANY LAW

908077 Alta. Ltd. v. 1313608 Alta. Ltd. (2015), 610 A.R. 270 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] A.R. TBEd. MR.100

908077 Alberta Ltd. (plaintiff) v. 1313608 Alberta Ltd. (defendant)

(1103 10657; 2015 ABQB 108)

Indexed As: 908077 Alberta Ltd. v. 1313608 Alberta Ltd.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Rooke, A.C.J.Q.B.

February 13, 2015.

Summary:

Lussaint was a director of the plaintiff, 908077 Alberta Ltd. Lussaint applied for confirmation that 908077 could act as a self-represented litigant. Brown, J., rejected that application and 908077 was ordered to retain counsel by December 16, 2013. If not, the lawsuit would be dismissed. 908077 appealed that order. 908077 was represented by its directors, Lussaint and Huggins.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at [2014] A.R. Uned. 65, ordered a rehearing on the issue of whether a director could represent a corporation because the application before Brown, J., "was based on an incomplete and somewhat ambiguous record". The rehearing occurred.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench directed that 908077 could not be represented by its directors. The court ordered that 908077 had two months to retain a lawyer to represent it in the action or the action would be struck out.

Company Law - Topic 5

General - Representation in court - [See Practice - Topic 33 and Practice - Topic 34 ].

Practice - Topic 33

Actions - Conduct of - General - Party self-representation - General - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "1. an individual may represent themselves in the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench; 2. an estate, corporation, or litigation representative must be represented in the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench by a person authorized to practice law under the Legal Profession Act; 3. any common law or inherent discretion to permit representation in the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench by a non-lawyer has been extinguished by the New Rules; 4. New Rule 2.23 allows any person to provide only silent and passive support in court, provided those activities are restricted to a 'McKenzie Friend' role; and 5. Professional Sign Crafters (1988) Ltd. v. Wedekind, Pacer Enterprises Ltd. v. Cummings, and Balogun v. Pandher are no longer good law in relation to the right to physically appear in court as a representative and have been overruled by Lameman v Alberta (C.A.)" - See paragraph 56.

Practice - Topic 34

Actions - Conduct of - General - Party self-representation - Companies - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench concluded that the directors of the plaintiff, 908077 Alberta Ltd., did not have a right to represent 908077 in the action - The court stated that "While 908077 is a legal person and has a right to access this Court, its basic character as an artificial person requires that it must have a lawyer to speak for it in Court. When combined, the New Rules and the Legal Profession Act mean that a corporation may only be represented by a lawyer" - See paragraphs 23 to 58.

Practice - Topic 35

Actions - Conduct of - General - Representation by non-lawyer - [See Practice - Topic 33 and Practice - Topic 34 ].

Cases Noticed:

Jones v. Edmonton Catholic School District No. 7, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 872; 11 N.R. 280; 1 A.R. 100; 70 D.L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 12].

Minister of National Revenue v. Stanchfield (2009), 340 F.T.R. 150; 2009 FC 99, refd to. [para. 12].

Kennedy v. Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, [2000] 4 C.T.C. 186; 2000 D.T.C. 6524 (Ont. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 12].

Professional Sign Crafters (1988) Ltd. et al. v. Wedekind et al. (1994), 153 A.R. 358; 19 Alta. L.R.(3d) 53 (Q.B.), not folld. [para. 14].

786372 Alberta Ltd. et al. v. Mohawk Canada Ltd. (2002), 324 A.R. 192; 2002 ABQB 785, refd to. [para. 14].

Babich v. Minister of National Revenue, [2011] N.R. Uned. 46; [2011] 4 C.T.C. 28; 2011 FCA 59, refd to. [para. 14].

1069616 Alberta Ltd. v. Canada, [2012] 1 C.T.C. 2177; 2011 TCC 431, refd to. [para. 14].

McKenzie v. McKenzie, [1971] P. 33; [1970] 3 All E.R. 1034 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Lameman et al. v. Alberta et al. (2012), 522 A.R. 140; 544 W.A.C. 140; 2012 ABCA 59, folld. [para. 21].

Pacer Enterprises Ltd. v. Cummings et al. (2004), 346 A.R. 161; 320 W.A.C. 161; 2004 ABCA 28, refd to. [para. 24].

Balogun v. Pandher (2009), 469 A.R. 187; 470 W.A.C. 187; 2009 ABCA 409, not folld. [para. 24].

Perreal v. Knibb (2014), 581 A.R. 275; 2014 ABQB 15, refd to. [para. 25].

Nahirney v. Ogilvie & Co. et al. (2011), 525 A.R. 14; 2011 ABQB 586, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Hinse (R.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 597; 189 N.R. 321; 130 D.L.R.(4th) 54, refd to. [para. 31].

MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Simpson et al., [1995] 4 S.C.R. 725; 191 N.R. 260; 68 B.C.A.C. 161; 112 W.A.C. 161; 130 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 31].

Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Canadian Liberty Net et al., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 626; 224 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 33].

Board v. Board, [1919] A.C. 956 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Crooks (M.A.) (2011), 510 A.R. 364; 527 W.A.C. 364; 2011 ABCA 239, refd to. [para. 40].

Lameman et al. v. Alberta et al. (2011), 521 A.R. 99; 2011 ABQB 396, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Potts (M.J.) (2011), 528 A.R. 223; 2011 ABQB 816, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Potts (M.J.) (2012), 542 A.R. 39; 566 W.A.C. 39; 2012 ABCA 395, refd to. [para. 42].

Scotia Mortgage Corp. v. Gutierrez, [2012] A.R. Uned. 756; 84 Alta. L.R.(5th) 349; 2012 ABQB 683, refd to. [para. 43].

Meads v. Meads (2012), 543 A.R. 215; 2012 ABQB 571, refd to. [para. 43].

Champagne v. Sidorsky (2012), 548 A.R. 10; 2012 ABQB 522, refd to. [para. 44].

Salamon et al. v. Alberta (Minister of Education) et al. (1991), 120 A.R. 298; 8 W.A.C. 298; 83 Alta. L.R.(2d) 275 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (1993), 150 N.R. 306; 141 A.R. 318; 46 W.A.C. 318 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 45].

644036 Alberta Ltd. v. Morbank Financial Inc. et al., [2014] A.R. Uned. 820; 2014 ABQB 681, refd to. [para. 46].

Oommen v. Ramjohn (2015), 593 A.R. 376; 637 W.A.C. 376; 2015 ABCA 34, refd to. [para. 47].

Jin v. Ren et al., [2014] A.R. Uned. 278; 2014 ABQB 250, refd to. [para. 48].

Christie v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al., [2007] 1 S.C.R. 873; 361 N.R. 322; 240 B.C.A.C. 1; 398 W.A.C. 1; 2007 SCC 21, refd to. [para. 51].

Vilardell v. Dunham (2014), 463 N.R. 336; 361 B.C.A.C. 1; 619 W.A.C. 1; 375 D.L.R.(4th) 599; 2014 SCC 59, refd to. [para. 53].

Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia v. British Columbia (Attorney General) - see Vilardell v. Dunham.

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur général), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2; 58 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [para. 54].

Statutes Noticed:

Legal Profession Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. L-8, sect. 106 [para. 22].

Rules of Court (Alta.), rule 2.22, rule 2.23(1) [para. 20].

Counsel:

Pierre Lussaint and Denis Huggins, applicants;

Kelly W. Wong, for the respondent.

This matter was heard on January 20, 2015, before Rooke, A.C.J.Q.B., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following memorandum of decision on February 13, 2015.