Dombek v. Law Society of Saskatchewan, (1992) 107 Sask.R. 173 (QB)

• Judge: Barclay, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: December 23, 1992
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1992), 107 Sask.R. 173 (QB)

Dombek v. Sask. Law Soc. (1992), 107 Sask.R. 173 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Carl Dombek (applicant/plaintiff) v. The Law Society of Saskatchewan (respondent/defendant)

(1992 Q.B. No. 2610)

Indexed As: Dombek v. Law Society of Saskatchewan

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Regina

Barclay, J.

December 23, 1992.

Summary:

Dombek applied for certiorari and mandamus to quash the decision of the Law Society terminating him and compelling the Law Society to reinstate him and pay any salary and benefits wrongfully denied. In the alternative, he sought an order under rule 188 setting down for determination two questions of law: (1) whether he was an office holder; and (2) whether the Law Society failed in its duty to act fairly.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application.

Practice - Topic 5264

Trials - General - Trial of preliminary issues - Application - Question of law - Dombek sued the Law Society for wrong­ful dismissal - He then applied for certiorari and mandamus seeking reinstate­ment; or alternatively, for determination under rule 188 of two questions of law, namely, whether he was an office holder and whether the Law Society failed in its duty to act fairly - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, dismissed the applications - There was no agreed state­ment of facts and facts were in dispute; the issues of law and fact were complex and were intermingled; and a summary ruling would not resolve all the outstanding issues.

Practice - Topic 5264

Trials - General - Trial of preliminary issues - Application - Question of law - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench set forth the questions to be addressed in determining whether a case was appropri­ate for a rule 188 disposition respecting preliminary points of law - See paragraph 18 - The court discussed the circum­stances when it was appropriate to sum­marily consider certiorari or mandamus motions or determine preliminary points of law.

Cases Noticed:

Knight v. Board of Education of Indian Head School Division No. 19, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 653; 106 N.R. 17; 83 Sask.R. 81, refd to. [para. 8].

Barrett, Nicholas and Reiss v. Board of Education of the Northern Lights School Division No. 113, [1988] 3 W.W.R. 50; 64 Sask.R. 81 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Govan Local School Board v. Last Moun­tain School Division No. 29, [1992] 2 W.W.R. 481; 93 Sask.R. 229; 4 W.A.C. 229 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Shields (Resort Village) v. Toronto-Dom­inion Bank, [1989] 2 W.W.R. 163; 69 Sask.R. 131 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Stagman v. Hamm, [1984] 5 W.W.R. 148; 34 Sask.R. 265 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Statutes Noticed:

Legal Profession Act, S.S. 1990-91, c. L-10.1, generally [para. 9].

Rules of Court (Sask.), Queen's Bench Rules, rule 188 [para. 15].

Counsel:

Dr. A.J. Beke, Q.C., for the ap­plicant/plaintiff;

W.R. Pelton, for the respondent/defendant.

This application was heard before Barclay, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Regina, who delivered the following judgment on Dec­ember 23, 1992.