Brown Economic Assessments Inc. v. Stevenson et al., (2004) 249 Sask.R. 214 (CA)

• Judge: Vancise, Sherstobitoff and Jackson, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: May 27, 2004
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2004), 249 Sask.R. 214 (CA);2004 SKCA 89

Brown Economic v. Stevenson (2004), 249 Sask.R. 214 (CA);

    325 W.A.C. 214

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] Sask.R. TBEd. JN.043

James Harcourt Gillis, Allan Carl Hjelte and Daniel Neil Tangjerd (defendants/appellants) v. Brown Economic Assessments Inc. (plaintiff/respondent) and Robert Louis Stevenson (defendant/non-party)

(No. 733; 2004 SKCA 89)

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

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Vancise, Sherstobitoff and Jackson, JJ.A.

May 27, 2004.

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, in a judgment reported (2003), 233 Sask.R. 149, 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. The partners appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

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 trial judge 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 - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal affirmed the decision, stating that "if s. 16 applies, the analysis of the trial judge was correct. If s. 16 does not apply because the [defendant lawyers] and Stevenson were not partners, then the common law applies. And under the common law ... the [defendant lawyers] are, by the holding out, estopped from denying their contractual obligations or their partnership." - See paragraphs 1 to 9.

Partnership - Topic 310

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

Cases Noticed:

Con-Force Products Ltd. v. Rosen and Boyle (1967), 61 W.W.R.(N.S.) 129 (Sask. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 7].

Bet-Mur Investments Ltd. v. Spring (1994), 20 O.R.(3d) 417 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 8].

Westfair Foods Ltd. et al. v. Coopers & Lybrand et al., [1997] B.C.T.C. Uned. B31; 45 B.C.L.R.(3d) 186 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 8].

Peters v. Klassen et al., [1994] 5 W.W.R. 264; 92 Man.R.(2d) 245; 61 W.A.C. 245 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Corbett v. McKee, Calabrese & Whitehead (1984), 54 N.B.R.(2d) 107; 140 A.P.R. 107 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 8].

Mantik v. Brotman, Cramer and Braunstein (1984), 29 Man.R.(2d) 134 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 8].

Waugh v. Carver (1793), 2 Hy. Bl. 235; 126 E.R. 525, refd to. [para. 10].

Mollwo, March & Co. v. Court of Wards (1872), 17 E.R. 495, refd to. [para. 11].

Fraser, Re; Ex parte Central Bank of London, [1892] 2 Q.B. 633 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Statutes Noticed:

Partnership Act, R.S.S. 1978, c. P-3, sect. 6, sect. 16 [para. 6].

Counsel:

Gerald P. Wanhella, for the appellants;

Gary A. Zabos, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on May 27, 2004, before Vancise, Sherstobitoff and Jackson, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered orally by Sherstobitoff, J.A., on May 27, 2004, with written reasons provided on June 9, 2004.