G. et al. v. Chaykowski, (1998) 222 A.R. 317 (QB)

• Judge: Belzil, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: June 30, 1998
• Citations: (1998), 222 A.R. 317 (QB)

G. v. Chaykowski (1998), 222 A.R. 317 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] A.R. TBEd. JL.043

Ms. G., Ms. T. and Mrs. G. as next friend of the infant, Ms. T. (plaintiffs) v. Walter Chaykowski (defendant)

(Action No. 9603-05618)

Indexed As: G. et al. v. Chaykowski

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Belzil, J.

June 30, 1998.

Summary:

The plaintiffs sued the defendant for dam­ages for sexual assault. The plaintiffs argued that the defendant, having been convicted of two criminal charges, was precluded from denying the factual basis for those two criminal convictions and that as such para­graphs 1, 2 and 3 of the statement of defence should be struck out either as an abuse of process under rule 129 of the Rules of Court, or, alternatively, that summary judgment should be granted on a portion of the state­ment of claim under rule 159 on the basis that there is no genuine issue to be tried.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench struck out paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the statement of defence with leave to the defen­dant to amend the statement of defence to deny the occurrence of assaults not the subject of criminal proceedings while admit­ting the two assaults which formed the basis of the criminal conviction.

Evidence - Topic 103

Degree, standard or burden of proof - Standard or degree of proof - Proof in civil cases - Effect of prior crimi­nal conviction - The plaintiffs sued the defendant for damages for sexual assault - The plaintiffs argued that the defendant, having been convicted of two criminal charges, was precluded from denying the factual basis for those two criminal convic­tions and that as such para­graphs 1, 2 and 3 of the state­ment of defence should be struck out either as an abuse of process, or, alternatively, that summary judgment should be granted on a portion of the statement of claim on the basis that there is no genuine issue to be tried - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench struck out paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the statement of defence with leave to the defendant to amend the statement of defence to deny the occurrence of assaults not the subject of criminal proceedings while admitting the two assaults which formed the basis of the criminal convic­tion.

Evidence - Topic 103

Degree, standard or burden of proof - Standard or degree of proof - Proof in civil cases - Effect of prior crimi­nal conviction - The plaintiffs sued the defendant for damages for sexual assault - The plaintiffs argued that the defendant, having been convicted of two criminal charges, was precluded from denying the factual basis for those two criminal convic­tions and that as such para­graphs 1, 2 and 3 of the state­ment of defence should be struck out either as an abuse of process, or, alternatively, that summary judgment should be granted on a portion of the statement of claim - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench struck out paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the statement of defence - There was no genu­ine issue to be tried with respect to the factual basis for the charges on which the defendant was convicted and, alternatively, it would be an abuse of process to allow that issue to be litigated in civil proceed­ings which would be a collat­eral attack on criminal proceed­ings not appealed from.

Evidence - Topic 1297

Relevant facts - Relevance and materiality - Doing of human act - Civil cases - Prior criminal conviction - [See both Evidence -Topic 103 ].

Practice - Topic 2230

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Failure to disclose a defence - [See second Evidence - Topic 103 ].

Practice - Topic 2239

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Abuse of process - [See second Evidence - Topic 103 ].

Cases Noticed:

Turigan et al. v. Alberta (1988), 90 A.R. 118; 62 Alta. L.R.(2d) 1 (C.A.), consd. [para. 12].

Holt v. MacMaster and Buteau (1993), 140 A.R. 235; 11 Alta. L.R.(3d) 226 (Q.B.), consd. [para. 15].

Statutes Noticed:

Alberta Evidence Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. A-21, sect. 27 [para. 10].

Counsel:

Robert E. Lee, for the plaintiffs;

Frank C. DeAngelis, for the defendant.

This application was heard before Belzil, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following decision on June 30, 1998.