Cavilla v. Fromm, 2014 ABPC 228

• Judge: Redman, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: April 14, 2014
• Citations: 2014 ABPC 228;(2014), 598 A.R. 17 (PC)

Cavilla v. Fromm (2014), 598 A.R. 17 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] A.R. TBEd. OC.100

David C. Cavilla (carrying on business under the firm name and style of RMcD Law Office)

(plaintiff) v. Clayton Fromm (defendant)

(P1302600668; 2014 ABPC 228)

Indexed As: Cavilla v. Fromm

Alberta Provincial Court

Redman, P.C.J.

October 10, 2014.

Summary:

The plaintiff lawyer sued the defendant for $3,500 for legal services. The claim was served and no dispute note was filed. The plaintiff then sought a default judgment but was advised by the clerk that an application for judgment was required pursuant to a Provincial Court practice direction. The plaintiff claimed that the court lacked jurisdiction to direct an application pursuant to the practice direction, because, pursuant to s. 40(1) of the Provincial Court Act it was mandatory to issue a default judgment where the undefended claim was for a "debt or liquidated demand".

The Alberta Provincial Court rejected the solicitor's argument respecting the effect of s. 40(1). The court considered the material filed by the plaintiff lawyer in support of the claim and found the account to be reasonable. Accordingly, the court granted judgment in favour of the plaintiff.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 3347

Compensation - Actions against clients - Default judgment - At issue was whether the Provincial Court (Alta.) could issue a practice direction that, in an action for legal fees and charges where a defendant failed to file a dispute note, the plaintiff lawyer could not obtain default judgment without applying to the court - A lawyer complained that the practice note was contrary to s. 40(1) of the Provincial Court Act which provided that a plaintiff could obtain default judgment if the undefended claim was for a "debt or liquidated demand" - The Alberta Provincial Court rejected the lawyer's argument - The court held that the phrase "debt or liquidated demand" in s. 40(1) did not include a claim for a solicitor's account - Section 40 did not alter the court's supervisory role over lawyers and their relationship with their clients - The court, in this case, found the lawyer's account to be reasonable and granted judgment in favour of the lawyer - See paragraphs 11 to 71.

Practice - Topic 5607

Judgments and orders - Default judgments - Debt or liquidated demand - [See Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 3347 ].

Words and Phrases

Debt or liquidated demand - The Alberta Provincial Court discussed whether a solicitor's account was a "debt or liquidated demand" within the meaning of s. 40(1) of the Provincial Court Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. P-31 - See paragraphs 38 to 68.

Cases Noticed:

T., Re, [1921] 1 W.W.R. 1095, refd to. [para. 11].

E., Re, [1922] 2 W.W.R. 1324 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

McCarthy Tétrault LLP v. Guberman, [2012] O.A.C. Uned. 545; 2012 ONCA 679, refd to. [para. 13].

Plazavest Financial Corp. et al. v. National Bank of Canada et al. (2000), 133 O.A.C. 100; 185 D.L.R.(4th) 78 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Crowe, Duhamel, Manning v. Allford, Provincial Court Judge (1983), 45 A.R. 364 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 21].

Murska Management (1969) Ltd. v. Flesher (1990), 118 A.R. 251 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 26].

Witten LLP v. Arsenault (2006), 393 A.R. 216 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 27].

Javornich v. McCarthy (2007), 225 O.A.C. 201; 2007 ONCA 484, refd to. [para. 32].

West v. Meagher, P.C.J. (1994), 123 Sask.R. 44; 74 W.A.C. 44 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

Standard Oil Co. of B.C. Ltd. v. Wood (1964), 47 W.W.R.(N.S.) 494 (B.C. Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 38].

Busnex Business Exchange Ltd. v. Canadian Medical Legacy Corp. (1999), 119 B.C.A.C. 78; 194 W.A.C. 78; 1999 BCCA 78, refd to. [para. 38].

Holden Day Wilson v. Ashton et al. (1993), 64 O.A.C. 4; 14 O.R.(3d) 306 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 40].

Eades v. Kootnikoff, [1995] B.C.T.C. Uned. C31; [1996] 1 W.W.R. 730 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 48].

Sonnenschein v. Kramchynski (2000), 192 Sask.R. 279; 2000 SKQB 181, refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Mian (M.H.) (2014), 462 N.R. 1; 580 A.R. 1; 620 W.A.C. 1; 2014 SCC 54, refd to. [para. 57].

Vysek v. Nova Gas International Ltd. et al. (2002), 303 A.R. 209; 273 W.A.C. 209 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].

Abernethy (J.W.) Management & Consulting Ltd. et al. v. 705589 Alberta Ltd. et al. (2005), 367 A.R. 38; 346 W.A.C. 38 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].

Cunningham v. Lilles et al., [2010] 1 S.C.R. 331; 399 N.R. 326; 283 B.C.A.C. 280; 480 W.A.C. 280; 2010 SCC 10, refd to. [para. 58].

Jones v. Owners - Condominium Plan No. 7510189, [1997] 5 W.W.R. 444; 196 A.R. 3; 141 W.A.C. 3 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 64].

Statutes Noticed:

Provincial Court Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. P-31, sect. 40 [para. 18].

Rules of Court (Alta.), rule 1.9 [para. 20]; rule 10.22 [para. 17].

Counsel:

David C. Cavilla, for the plaintiff.

This case was heard on April 14, 2014, before Redman, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision on October 10, 2014.