Furlotte v. LeBlond et al., (2015) 442 N.B.R.(2d) 198 (CA)

• Judge: Richard, Quigg and Green, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (New Brunswick)
• Case Date: October 27, 2015
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: (2015), 442 N.B.R.(2d) 198 (CA);2015 NBCA 70

Furlotte v. LeBlond (2015), 442 N.B.R.(2d) 198 (CA);

    442 R.N.-B.(2e) 198; 1155 A.P.R. 198

MLB headnote and full text

Sommaire et texte intégral

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2015] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. NO.028

Renvoi temp.: [2015] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. NO.028

Weldon Furlotte (appellant) v. Charles A. LeBlond and Larry Kelly (respondents)

(66-15-CA; 2015 NBCA 70)

Indexed As: Furlotte v. LeBlond et al.

Répertorié: Furlotte v. LeBlond et al.

New Brunswick Court of Appeal

Richard, Quigg and Green, JJ.A.

November 19, 2015.

Summary:

Résumé:

Furlotte sued Elward for damages for personal injuries that he suffered in a motor vehicle accident. The trial judge awarded Furlotte $30,000 for general damages and $74,500 for loss of valuable services (see (2010), 362 N.B.R.(2d) 365; 934 A.P.R. 365). Elward's insurer (Allstate) paid Furlotte the full amount of the award. On appeal, the Court of Appeal reduced the award for loss of valuable services to $28,500 (see (2011), 379 N.B.R.(2d) 199; 978 A.P.R. 199). Elward's lawyer (LeBlond), acting on the instruction of an Allstate employee (Kelly), submitted a draft judgment to the Court of Appeal which stated that Elward was entitled to recover the overpayment in damages in the amount of $46,000. The judgment was signed by the Deputy Registrar of the Court. LeBlond then commenced proceedings to have the judgment enforced. Furlotte was required to submit to an examination. Furlotte argued that the recovery of an overpayment was neither requested by Elward during the appeal, nor ordered by the Court of Appeal in its decision. Furlotte commenced an action against LeBlond and Kelly, claiming that they knowingly and willingly, or negligently, filed and registered a false and misleading judgment. He also claimed that LeBlond and Kelly committed an invasion of his privacy through the examination after judgment. LeBlond and Kelly moved for summary judgment dismissing the action pursuant to rule 22.01(3) of the Rules of Court.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, in a decision reported at (2015), 437 N.B.R.(2d) 315; 1140 A.P.R. 315, granted the motions. Furlotte appealed.

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 4441

Relations with third parties (incl. opposite parties) - Duty to third or opposite parties - General - [See Practice - Topic 5719 ].

Practice - Topic 5421

Judgments and orders - Validity - General - [See Practice - Topic 5719 ].

Practice - Topic 5702

Judgments and orders - Summary judgments - Jurisdiction or when available or when appropriate - [See Practice - Topic 5719 ].

Practice - Topic 5719

Judgments and orders - Summary judgments - To dismiss action - A trial judge ordered Elward to pay Furlotte $74,500 for loss of valuable services arising from injuries that Furlotte suffered in a motor vehicle accident - Elward's insurer (Allstate) paid the award - On appeal, the Court of Appeal reduced the award to $28,500 - Elward's lawyer (LeBlond), acting on the instruction of an Allstate employee (Kelly), submitted a draft judgment to the Court of Appeal which stated that Elward was entitled to recover the $46,000 overpayment - The judgment was signed by the Deputy Registrar of the Court - LeBlond then commenced enforcement proceedings - Furlotte argued that the recovery of an overpayment was neither requested by Elward nor ordered by the Court of Appeal - He sued LeBlond and Kelly (the defendants), claiming that they knowingly and willingly, or negligently, filed and registered a false and misleading judgment - He also claimed that the defendants invaded his privacy through an examination after judgment - A motion judge granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment and dismissed the action - Although the Court of Appeal did not specifically order that Furlotte reimburse the overpayment, the draft judgment confirmed what was obvious from the Court of Appeal's decision - The judgment was properly obtained and was valid - Further, a lawyer did not owe a duty of care to an opposing party, and Kelly took no part in any of the events leading to the formal judgment - The claim for invasion of privacy could not stand when the defendants' conduct was lawfully justified - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal dismissed Furlotte's appeal - The court was in substantial agreement with the motion judge's reasons.

Torts - Topic 5401

Invasion of privacy - General - [See Practice - Topic 5719 ].

Counsel:

Avocats:

Weldon Furlotte on his own behalf, for the appellant;

Lucie Richard, Q.C., for the respondent, Charles A. LeBlond, Q.C.;

J. Charles Foster, Q.C., for the respondent, Larry Kelly.

This appeal was heard on October 27, 2015, before Richard, Quigg and Green, JJ.A., of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal. The following judgment of the court was rendered on November 19, 2015, in both official languages.