Denman v. Jamieson, 2006 ABQB 210

JudgeWatson, J.
CourtCourt of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
Case DateFebruary 24, 2006
Citations2006 ABQB 210;(2006), 396 A.R. 199 (QB)

Denman v. Jamieson (2006), 396 A.R. 199 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] A.R. TBEd. MR.131

Clare Jane Denman (plaintiff/defendant by counterclaim/respondent) v. Ronald Ian Jamieson (defendant/plaintiff by counterclaim/applicant)

(4803-127885; 0303-20077; 2006 ABQB 210)

Indexed As: Denman v. Jamieson

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Watson, J.

March 15, 2006.

Summary:

A wife commenced a divorce and matrimonial property action. The husband commenced an action for damages against the wife alleging the removal of, or damage to, chattels and intellectual property owned by the husband or his corporation. The husband moved to disqualify Mackay from continuing to act as his wife's counsel.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the motion but ordered the removal of certain privileged communications from the wife's affidavits of records, and the return of all copies of those communications to the husband's counsel.

Editor's Note: for prior cases involving these parties see 365 A.R. 201; 365 A.R. 245.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 787

Duty to court - Disqualification of counsel - When available (incl. grounds) - A wife commenced a divorce and matrimonial property action - The husband commenced an action for damages against the wife alleging the removal of, or damage to, chattels and intellectual property owned by the husband or his corporation - The husband moved to disqualify Mackay from continuing to act as his wife's counsel - Over a period of time, the wife accessed the email account of her husband's company - She used a password her husband had provided to her before their separation - Some of the emails were from the husband's lawyer to the husband - The husband argued that there had been an infringement of solicitor-client privilege through the improper interception of solicitor-client communications and an infringement of his reasonable expectation of privacy in his business affairs and records - Some of the intercepted documents, including one solicitor-client communication, were included in the wife's affidavits of records - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the motion - There was no evidence that Mackay connived with the wife to acquire solicitor-client or private communications - The court was not persuaded that there has been a contaminating reception and misuse of privileged information by Mackay or that the wife's conduct warranted such an intrusive and costly sanction as removal of her counsel.

Courts - Topic 17

Stare decisis - Authority of judicial decisions - General principles - Scope of stare decisis - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "[t]he common law's development is governed by the hierarchy principle associated with the doctrine of stare decisis. First instance judges should hesitate to revisit let alone revise principles of law established by higher courts. A first instance judge has no superior knowledge as to what the Charter might invite under circumstances for which the law is settled..." - See paragraph 82.

Practice - Topic 4152

Discovery - General principles - Purpose of discovery - A party stated that the discovery process in Part 13 of the Rules of Court provided the means for obtaining relevant documents from an opposing party, and that it was contrary to the public interest to condone extra-judicial self-help relative to obtaining documents in the possession of an opposing party - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench agreed with the latter point - The object of the relevant parts of the Rules of Court was to provide for an adequate, timely and adjudicatively fair process for discovery and production in civil proceedings in Alberta - It was not desirable for parties to be allowed, let alone encouraged, to purloin information or to pre- emptively acquire it by unacceptable means - See paragraphs 96 and 97.

Cases Noticed:

Gray, Administrator of MacDonald Estate - see MacDonald Estate v. Martin and Rossmere Holdings (1970) Ltd.

MacDonald Estate v. Martin and Rossmere Holdings (1970) Ltd., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1235; 121 N.R. 1; 70 Man.R.(2d) 241; [1991] 1 W.W.R. 705; 77 D.L.R.(4th) 249; 48 C.P.C.(2d) 113; 1990 CarswellMan 233, refd to. [para. 8, footnote 2].

National Bank Financial Ltd. v. Potter et al. (2005), 233 N.S.R.(2d) 123; 739 A.P.R. 123; 2005 CarswellNS 202; 2005 NSSC 113, refd to. [para. 12, footnote 3].

R. v. McClure (D.E.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 445; 266 N.R. 275; 142 O.A.C. 201; 195 D.L.R.(4th) 513; 151 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 40 C.R.(5th) 19; 80 C.R.R.(2d) 217; 2001 CarswellOnt 496; 2001 SCC 14, refd to. [para. 62, footnote 8].

Maranda v. Québec (Justice of the Peace) and Canada (Attorney General) - see Maranda v. Leblanc.

Maranda v. Leblanc, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 193; 311 N.R. 357; 178 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 232 D.L.R.(4th) 14; 15 C.R.(6th) 1; 113 C.R.R.(2d) 76; 2003 CarswellQue 2477; 2003 SCC 67, refd to. [para. 62, footnote 9].

Financial Ltd. et al. v. Potter et al., [2004] N.S.R.(2d) Uned. 150; 2004 CarwswellNS 521; 2004 NSCA 152, refd to. [para. 62, footnote 10].

Autosurvey Inc. v. Prevost et al., [2005] O.T.C. 883; 44 C.P.R.(4th) 274; 2005 CarswellOnt 5000 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 73, footnote 11].

Bourgeois Estate et al. v. Bolen, [2004] 8 W.W.R. 297; 351 A.R. 244; 49 M.V.R.(4th) 272; 44 C.P.C.(5th) 193; 26 Alta. L.R.(4th) 178; 2004 CarswellAlta 71; [2004] A.W.L.D. 223; 2004 ABQB 35, refd to. [para. 73, footnote 12].

R. v. Shearing (I.), [2002] 3 S.C.R. 33; 290 N.R. 225; 168 B.C.A.C. 161; 275 W.A.C. 161; 165 C.C.C.(3d) 225; 214 D.L.R.(4th) 215; 2 C.R.(6th) 213; [2002] 8 W.W.R. 395; 2002 CarswellBC 1661; 2002 SCC 58, refd to. [para. 73, footnote 13].

R. v. Conway, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1659; 96 N.R. 241; 34 O.A.C. 165; 49 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 70 C.R.(3d) 209; 1989 CarswellOnt 94, refd to. [para. 74, footnote 14].

R. v. Bartle (K.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 173; 172 N.R. 1; 74 O.A.C. 161; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 33 C.R.(4th) 1; 6 M.V.R.(3d) 1; 118 D.L.R.(4th) 83; 19 O.R.(3d) 802; 1994 CarswellOnt 100, refd to. [para. 74, footnote 14].

Dolphin Delivery Ltd. v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 580, Peterson and Alexander, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 573; 71 N.R. 83; 33 D.L.R.(4th) 174; 38 C.C.L.T. 184; 25 C.R.R. 321; [1987] 1 W.W.R. 577; 87 C.L.L.C. 14,002; 9 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273; 1986 CarswellBC 411; [1987] D.L.Q. 69, refd to. [para. 76, footnote 15].

Blank v. Canada (Minister of Justice) (2006), 352 N.R. 201 (S.C.C.), affing. (2004), 325 N.R. 315; 244 D.L.R.(4th) 80; 34 C.P.R.(4th) 385; 21 Admin. L.R.(4th) 225; 2004 CarswellNat 3101 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 78, footnote 16].

Auer v. Lionstone Holdings Inc. et al., [2005] 9 W.W.R. 615; 363 A.R. 84; 343 W.A.C. 84; 13 M.V.R.(5th) 163; 20 C.C.L.I.(4th) 1; 2005 CarswellAlta 221; 2005 ABCA 78, refd to. [para. 78, footnote 17].

Société d'énergie Foster Wheeler Ltée v. Sociéte intermunicipale de gestion et d'élimination des déchets (SIGED) Inc., [2004] 1 S.C.R. 456; 318 N.R. 111; 237 D.L.R.(4th) 417; 2004 CarswellQue 513; 2004 SCC 18, refd to. [para. 78, footnote 18].

A.M. v. Ryan, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 157; 207 N.R. 81; 85 B.C.A.C. 81; 138 W.A.C. 81; 4 C.R.(5th) 220; [1997] 4 W.W.R. 1; 34 C.C.L.T.(2d) 1; 42 C.R.R.(2d) 37; 8 C.P.C.(4th) 1; 143 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 29 B.C.L.R.(3d) 133; 1997 CarswellBC 99, refd to. [para. 78, footnote 19].

D.P. v. Wagg (2004), 187 O.A.C. 26; 239 D.L.R.(4th) 501; 71 O.R.(3d) 229; 120 C.R.R.(2d) 52; 2004 CarswellOnt 1983 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 78, footnote 20].

Carter v. Glegg - see Glegg v. Smith & Nephew Inc. et al.

Glegg v. Smith & Nephew Inc. et al., [2005] 1 S.C.R. 724; 334 N.R. 201; 253 D.L.R.(4th) 193; 2005 CarswellQue 2642; EYB 2005-90169; J.E. 2005-994; 2005 SCC 31, refd to. [para. 78, footnote 21].

Harding (L.M.) Medical Supplies Ltd. et al. v. Patriquen (2005), 232 N.S.R.(2d) 111; 737 A.P.R. 111; 11 C.P.C.(6th) 315; 2005 CarswellNS 129; 2005 NSCA 48, refd to. [para. 78, footnote 22].

R. v. Campbell (J.) and Shirose (S.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 565; 237 N.R. 86; 119 O.A.C. 201; 133 C.C.C.(3d) 257; 24 C.R.(5th) 365; 1999 CarswellOnt 949, refd to. [para. 79, footnote 23].

Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559; 287 N.R. 248; 166 B.C.A.C. 1; 271 W.A.C. 1; 212 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 100 B.C.L.R.(3d) 1; 18 C.P.R.(4th) 289; 2002 CarswellBC 851; 2002 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 80, footnote 24].

R. v. Albright, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 383; 79 N.R. 129; 60 C.R.(3d) 97; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 105; 4 M.V.R.(2d) 311; [1987] 6 W.W.R. 577; 18 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145; 45 D.L.R.(4th) 11; 1987 CarswellBC 292, refd to. [para. 80, footnote 25].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Mossop, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 554; 149 N.R. 1; 46 C.C.E.L. 1; 93 C.L.L.C. 17,006; 13 Admin. L.R.(2d) 1; 100 D.L.R.(4th) 658; 17 C.H.R.R. D/349; 1993 CarswellNat 1365, refd to. [para. 81, footnote 26].

Charlebois v. Saint John (City) (2005), 342 N.R. 203; 292 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 761 A.P.R. 1; 261 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 2005 CarswellNB 710; 2005 SCC 74, refd to. [para. 81, footnote 27].

R. v. Mitchell (W.F.) (1994), 162 A.R. 109; 83 W.A.C. 109; 9 M.V.R.(3d) 314; 35 C.R.(4th) 282; 1994 CarswellAlta 331 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 82, footnote 28].

Bow Valley Husky (Bermuda) Ltd. et al. v. Saint John Shipbuilding Ltd. et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1210; 221 N.R. 1; 158 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 269; 490 A.P.R. 269; 153 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 48 C.C.L.I.(2d) 1; 37 B.L.R.(2d) 1; 40 C.C.L.T.(2d) 235; 1999 A.M.C. 108; 1997 CarswellNfld 207, refd to. [para. 82, footnote 29].

Watkins v. Olafson et al., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 750; 100 N.R. 161; 61 Man.R.(2d) 81; 61 D.L.R.(4th) 577; [1989] 6 W.W.R. 481; 39 B.C.L.R.(2d) 294; 1989 CarswellMan 1, refd to. [para. 82, footnote 30].

R. v. Law - see R. v. 2821109 Canada Inc. et al.

R. v. 2821109 Canada Inc. et al., [2002] 1 S.C.R. 227; 281 N.R. 267; 245 N.B.R.(2d) 270; 636 A.P.R. 270; 160 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 48 C.R.(4th) 199; 208 D.L.R.(4th) 207; 90 C.R.R.(2d) 55; [2002] G.S.T.C. 12; 2002 CarswellNB 44; 2002 SCC 10, refd to. [para. 83, footnote 31].

Firemaster Oilfield Services Ltd. v. Safety Boss (Canada) (1993) Ltd. et al., [2000] 9 W.W.R. 655; 285 A.R. 141; 81 Alta. L.R.(3d) 385; 47 C.P.C.(4th) 108; 2000 CarswellAlta 445; 2000 ABQB 932, refd to. [para. 83, footnote 32].

R. v. Weir (D.T.), [2001] 11 W.W.R. 85; 281 A.R. 333; 248 W.A.C. 333; 156 C.C.C.(3d) 188; 95 Alta. L.R.(3d) 225; 85 C.R.R.(2d) 369; 2001 CarswellAlta 1069; 2001 ABCA 181, refd to. [para. 83, footnote 33].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291; 9 C.R.R. 355; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 41 C.R.(3d) 97; [1984] 6 W.W.R. 577; 33 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; 27 B.L.R. 297; 84 D.T.C. 6467; 2 C.P.R.(3d) 1; 11 D.L.R.(4th) 641; 1984 CarswellAlta 121, refd to. [para. 86, footnote 34].

R. v. Mann (P.H.), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 59; 324 N.R. 215; 187 Man.R.(2d) 1; 330 W.A.C. 1; 185 C.C.C.(3d) 308; 21 C.R.(6th) 1; 241 D.L.R.(4th) 214; [2004] 11 W.W.R. 601; 2004 CarswellMan 303; 2004 SCC 52, refd to. [para. 87, footnote 35].

Dreco Energy Services Ltd. et al. v. Wenzel Downhole Tools Ltd. (2006), 380 A.R. 109; 363 W.A.C. 109; 2006 CarswellAlta 101; 2006 ABCA 39, refd to. [para. 88, footnote 36].

Miller v. Miller (2000), 257 A.R. 232; 2000 ABQB 12, refd to. [para. 98, footnote 37].

Miller v. Miller, 2000 CarswellAlta 1634; 2000 ABQB 271, refd to. [para. 98, footnote 37].

Grenzservice Speditions GmbH v. Jans, [1996] 4 W.W.R. 362; 15 B.C.L.R.(3d) 370; 129 D.L.R.(4th) 733; 64 C.P.R.(3d) 129; 1995 CarswellBC 1041 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 101, footnote 38].

Williams v. Stephenson et al., [2005] B.C.T.C. 1271; 46 B.C.L.R.(4th) 366; 2005 CarswellBC 2103; 2005 BCSC 1271, refd to. [para. 113, footnote 39].

Coutu et al. v. Jorgensen et al. (2004), 202 B.C.A.C. 67; 331 W.A.C. 67; 30 B.C.L.R.(4th) 344; 2004 CarswellBC 1742; 2004 BCCA 400, refd to. [para. 114, footnote 40].

Celanese Canada Inc. et al. v. Murray Demolition Corp. et al. (2006), 215 O.A.C. 266; 352 N.R. 1 (S.C.C.), reving. (2004), 190 O.A.C. 329; 1 C.P.C.(6th) 254; 244 D.L.R.(4th) 33; 73 O.R.(3d) 64; 2004 CarswellOnt 3935 (C.A.), leave to appeal granted (2005), 341 N.R. 396; 207 O.A.C. 397; 2005 CarswellOnt 1497 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 122, footnote 41].

Devcor Investment Group (Bankrupt), Re, [2000] A.R. Uned. 563; [2001] 4 W.W.R. 230; 88 Alta. L.R.(3d) 257; 26 C.B.R.(4th) 158; 2000 CarswellAlta 1462; 2000 ABQB 934, leave to appeal granted (2001), 277 A.R. 93; 242 W.A.C. 93; 22 C.B.R.(4th) 65 (C.A.), revd. [2001] 11 W.W.R. 615; 286 A.R. 300; 253 W.A.C. 300; 29 C.B.R.(4th) 46; 96 Alta. L.R.(3d) 84; 2001 Carswell Alta 1359; 2001 ABCA 226, leave to appeal refused (2002), 292 N.R. 194; 312 A.R. 376; 281 W.A.C. 376; 2002 CarswellAlta 270 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 124, footnote 43].

Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. et al. v. Maritime Life Assurance Co. (1998), 170 N.S.R.(2d) 390; 515 A.P.R. 390; 1998 CarswellNS 366 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 127, footnote 45].

Coulombe et al. v. Beard et al. (1993), 22 C.P.C.(3d) 101; 16 O.R.(3d) 627; 1993 CarswellOnt 476 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 127, footnote 46].

Osiris Inc. v. 1444706 Ontario Ltd. et al., [2005] O.T.C. 1101; 2005 CarswellOnt 7517 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 133, footnote 47].

Alberta (Treasury Branches) v. Leahy (1998), 223 A.R. 113; 183 W.A.C. 113; 1998 CarswellAlta 812; 1998 ABCA 286, refd to. [para. 135, footnote 49].

Baumgartner v. Baumgartner et al., [1995] 5 W.W.R. 289; 55 B.C.A.C. 277; 90 W.A.C. 277; 2 B.C.L.R.(3d) 126; 122 D.L.R.(4th) 542; 1995 CarswellBC 20 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 136, footnote 50].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Lundy, Derek, MacKenzie, Gavin, and Newbury, Mary V., Barristers and Solicitors in Practice (1998) (Looseleaf), para. 10.11 [para. 123, footnote 42].

MacKenzie, Gavin, Lawyers and Ethics: Professional Responsibility and Discipline (3rd Ed. 2001) (2005 Looseleaf), generally [para. 126, footnote 44].

Counsel:

Donald R. Cranston, Q.C. (Bennett Jones LLP), for the plaintiff/defendant by counterclaim/respondent) and Gordon Zwaenepoel for the purposes of this application only;

Daniel A. Palamar (Hajduk & Gibbs), for the defendant/plaintiff by counterclaim/ applicant.

This motion was heard on February 24, 2006, by Watson, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who released the following decision on March 15, 2006.

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 practice notes
  • Nielsen v. Nielsen, 2017 BCSC 269
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • February 20, 2017
    ...prejudice. The failure to act sooner is a factor for the Court to consider on the issue of disqualification: Denman v. Jamieson, 2006 ABQB 210 and [100] The reason this application was not brought on sooner is purely tactical. The material being objected to is not prejudicial to the applica......
1 cases
  • Nielsen v. Nielsen, 2017 BCSC 269
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • February 20, 2017
    ...prejudice. The failure to act sooner is a factor for the Court to consider on the issue of disqualification: Denman v. Jamieson, 2006 ABQB 210 and [100] The reason this application was not brought on sooner is purely tactical. The material being objected to is not prejudicial to the applica......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT