Brown Economic Assessments Inc. v. Stevenson et al., 2003 SKQB 149

• Judge: Hrabinsky, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: March 31, 2003
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2003 SKQB 149;(2003), 233 Sask.R. 149 (QB)

Brown Economic Assessments v. Stevenson (2003), 233 Sask.R. 149 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] Sask.R. TBEd. MY.016

Brown Economic Assessments Inc. (plaintiff) v. Robert Louis Stevenson and Stevenson Gillis Hjelte Tangjerd, James Harcourt Gillis, Allan Carl Hjelte and Daniel Neil Tangjerd (defendants)

Robert Louis Stevenson (plaintiff by counterclaim) v. Brown Economic Assessments Inc. and Cara Brown (defendants by counterclaim)

(2001 Q.B.G. No. 2409; 2003 SKQB 149)

Indexed As: Brown Economic Assessments Inc. v. Stevenson et al.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Hrabinsky, J.

March 31, 2003.

Summary:

The plaintiff sued to recover monies owed for services as an expert witness at a trial where the defendant Stevenson was counsel. The issue was whether the amount owed, if any, was the liability of all the defendant lawyers (as partners) or whether only Stevenson was liable. Stevenson counterclaimed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench allowed the action and dismissed the counterclaim. The court held that the defendant lawyers, although not partners, held themselves out to be partners. Accordingly, all of the defendant lawyers were liable.

Partnership - Topic 10

General - Partnership - What constitutes - [See Partnership - Topic 302 ].

Partnership - Topic 302

Tests of existence - Holding out - What constitutes - The plaintiff (expert witness) was owed monies for services provided at the trial of an individual represented by the defendant Stevenson as counsel - At issue was whether liability for the monies was limited to Stevenson personally or whether all of the defendant lawyers (law firm) were liable as partners - The law firm denied liability on the ground that they were an association of independent lawyers as opposed to partners - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench agreed that the association of lawyers, as structured, was not a "partnership" as defined by s. 4 of the Partnership Act - However, pursuant to s. 16 of the Act, each of the defendant lawyers held themselves out to be law partners, not only to the plaintiff, but to the public at large - The plaintiff relied on the representation of partnership when she provided her services for credit to the ostensible firm - Where the plaintiff relied on the holding out or representation of a partnership, all of the defendant lawyers were liable for her account.

Partnership - Topic 310

Tests of existence - Holding out - When non-partners liable - [See Partnership - Topic 302 ].

Cases Noticed:

Bet-Mur Investments Ltd. v. Spring (1994), 20 O.R.(3d) 417 (Gen. Div.), affd. [1999] O.A.C. Uned. 57; 41 O.R.(3d) 800 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

Corbett et al. v. McKee et al. (1984), 54 N.B.R.(2d) 107; 140 A.P.R. 107 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 48].

Statutes Noticed:

Partnership Act, R.S.S. 1978, c. P-3, sect. 4 [para. 38]; sect. 6 [para. 47]; sect. 16 [para. 41].

Counsel:

G.A. Zabos, for the plaintiff/defendant by counterclaim;

No one appearing for the defendant/plaintiff by counterclaim, R.L. Stevenson;

G.P. Wanhella, for the defendants, Stevenson Gillis Hjelte Tangjerd, James Harcourt Gillis, Allan Carl Hjelte and Daniel Neil Tangjerd.

This action was heard before Hrabinsky, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following judgment on March 31, 2003.