Cherkewich Yost & Heffernan Law Office v. Green Lake (Northern Village), (2000) 196 Sask.R. 13 (QB)

• Judge: Klebuc, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: July 05, 2000
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2000), 196 Sask.R. 13 (QB);2000 SKQB 306

Cherkewich Yost v. Green Lake (2000), 196 Sask.R. 13 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] Sask.R. TBEd. SE.006

Cherkewich Yost & Heffernan Law Office (plaintiff) v. Northern Village of Green Lake (defendant)

(1999 Q.B.G. No. 546; 2000 SKQB 306)

Indexed As: Cherkewich Yost & Heffernan Law Office v. Green Lake (Northern Village)

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Prince Albert

Klebuc, J.

July 5, 2000.

Summary:

A law firm sued a client for the unpaid balance of its account for legal services. The law firm's claim alleged a breach of con­tract, a claim based on quantum meruit, damages caused by collusion between the client's solicitor and other solicitors to cheat it of its account and right to a lien, and damages caused by the client and others breaching s. 392 of the Criminal Code (de­frauding a creditor). The client sought, inter alia, an order striking out the law firm's claims respecting collusion, breach of s. 392 of the Criminal Code and punitive and exemplary damages.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench struck out the law firm's claims respecting collusion and breach of s. 392 of the Crimi­nal Code. The court granted the law firm 15 days to amend its claim to provide specifics of the misconduct on which the claims for punitive and exemplary damages were founded. Such leave did not entitle the law firm to recast the struck out claims.

Actions - Topic 1527

Cause of action - Creation of - By statute -By violation of statute - A law firm sued a client for the unpaid balance of its account for legal services - It alleged that it was a creditor and that other individuals had aided and abetted the client in its efforts to dispose of the fruits of the rendered pro­fessional services in the litigation and settlement negotiations so as to defraud the law firm of its professional fees and ex­penses contrary to s. 392 of the Criminal Code of Canada (defrauding a creditor) - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench rejected the argument that s. 392 per se created a cause of action capable of sup­porting the claim and struck the claim - See paragraphs 22 to 26.

Practice - Topic 2230

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Failure to disclose a cause of action or defence - [See Actions - Topic 1527 and Torts - Topic 6302 ].

Practice - Topic 2231

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - False, frivolous, vexatious or scandalous - Queen's Bench Rule 173(c) permitted the striking out of scandalous, frivolous or vexatious pleadings - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench stated that the court should exercise enhanced scrutiny in circumstances where a successful rule 173(c) application would substantially bring an action to an end - In such limited circumstances, a more thorough examination of the law and un­challenged facts might be warranted than contemplated in the past - Enhanced scru­tiny contemplated counsel providing briefs fully addressing the issues - The court would not conduct elaborate research regarding submissions advanced by counsel regarding a complex question of law with­out an appropriate brief supporting the same - See paragraphs 10 and 11.

Torts - Topic 6302

Collusion - Pleadings - A law firm sued a client for the unpaid balance of its account for legal services - The law firm claimed, inter alia, damages caused by collusion between the client's solicitor and other solicitors to cheat it of its account and right to a lien - The law firm did not allege an agreement as the basis of its collusion claim - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that existence of a deceitful agreement, arrangement or under­standing to do an unfair act to prejudice a third party was an essential element of the tort of collusion - As an agreement was not pled, the court held that the law firm failed to adequately plead collusion as a cause of action and struck the paragraphs of the claim alleging collusion - See para­graphs 12 to 21.

Torts - Topic 6303

Collusion - Elements - [See Torts - Topic 6302 ].

Cases Noticed:

Inuit Tapirisat of Canada and National Anti-Poverty Organization v. Canada (Attorney General), [1980] 2 S.C.R. 735; 33 N.R. 304; 115 D.L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 5].

Hunt v. T & N plc et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959; 117 N.R. 321; 74 D.L.R.(4th) 321; [1990] 6 W.W.R. 385, refd to. [para. 5].

Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc. - see Hunt v. T & N plc et al.

Milgaard v. Kujawa et al. (1994), 123 Sask.R. 164; 74 W.A.C. 164; 118 D.L.R.(4th) 653; [1994] 9 W.W.R. 305 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Kindersley District Credit Union Ltd. v. Dahl (1993), 109 Sask.R. 74; 42 W.A.C. 74; 100 D.L.R.(4th) 161; [1993] 4 W.W.R. 727 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Sagon v. Royal Bank of Canada et al. (1992), 105 Sask.R. 133; 32 W.A.C. 133 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Roynat Inc. v. Northland Properties Ltd. et al., [1994] 2 W.W.R. 43; 115 Sask.R. 272 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 5].

American Hoist of Canada Ltd. v. Schule (1983), 29 Sask.R. 47 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 5].

Saskatchewan Provincial Court Judges Association et al. v. Saskatchewan (Minister of Justice) et al., [1995] 6 W.W.R. 626; 133 Sask.R. 115 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 5].

Harrison v. Camgoz et al., [1997] 2 W.W.R. 615; 151 Sask.R. 127; 7 C.P.C.(4th) 331 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 7].

Kichula v. Farm Credit Corp. (1991), 95 Sask.R. 245 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 8].

Gola v. Zaporanik, [1925] 1 D.L.R. 34; [1924] 3 W.W.R. 811; 19 Sask. L.R. 333 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Bank of Montreal v. Woydon, [1986] 4 W.W.R. 69; 48 Sask.R. 52 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 8].

Wirth v. Wirth and Saskatoon (City) (1979), 3 Sask.R. 240 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

White Fox Alfalfa Seed Growers Co-oper­ative Marketing Association Ltd. v. McKenzie (A.E.) Co., [1940] 3 W.W.R. 433 (Sask. K.B.), refd to. [para. 8].

Canadian Grain Co. v. Lepp et al., [1917] 1 W.W.R. 684; 33 D.L.R. 185; 9 Sask. L.R. 477 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 9].

Bank of Montreal v. Schmidt et al. (1989), 75 Sask.R. 157 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Stoikopoulous v. Remenda and Laverdiere (1985), 39 Sask.R. 58; 3 C.P.C.(2d) 303 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 9].

Bombardier Credit Ltd. v. Kostuchuk et al., [1994] 10 W.W.R. 257; 123 Sask.R. 89; 74 W.A.C. 89 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Price v. Crouch (1891), 60 L.J. (Q.B.) 767, refd to. [para. 14].

Beale v. Beale, [1929] 3 D.L.R. 1; [1929] 2 W.W.R. 1 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Bigford v. Squirrell, [1921] 2 W.W.R. 739 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Tropox v. Droney, [1918] 1 W.W.R. 540 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Bickle v. Murray, [1924] 2 W.W.R. 369 (Alta. T.D.), refd to. [para. 14].

Dicarllo v. McLean (1915), 33 O.L.R. 231 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 14].

Health Care Corp. of St. John's v. Crosbie et al. (1999), 181 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 174; 550 A.P.R. 174 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Saskatchewan Wheat Pool v. Canada, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 205; 45 N.R. 425; [1983] 3 W.W.R. 97, refd to. [para. 24].

Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932] A.C. 562; 37 Com. Cas. 850 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 26].

Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto and Manning, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130; 184 N.R. 1; 84 O.A.C. 1; 126 D.L.R.(4th) 129, refd to. [para. 27].

Lauscher v. Berryere (Bankrupt) et al. (1999), 177 Sask.R. 219; 199 W.A.C. 219 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 392 [para. 22].

Queen's Bench Rules (Sask.) - see Rules of Court (Sask.), Queen's Bench Rules.

Rules of Court (Sask.), Queen's Bench Rules, rule 173(a) [para. 7]; rule 173(c) [para. 8].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Mozley & Whiteley's Law Dictionary (10th Ed. 1988) [para. 12].

Oxford Companion to Law (1980) [para. 13].

Counsel:

James H.W. Sanderson, Q.C., for the plaintiff;

William D. Preston, for the defendant.

This application was heard before Klebuc, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Prince Albert, who delivered the following judgment on July 5, 2000.