Jamieson et al. v. Denman et al., (2004) 365 A.R. 201 (QB)

• Judge: Watson, J.
• Court: Court of Queen''s Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: Monday July 26, 2004
• Citations: (2004), 365 A.R. 201 (QB);2004 ABQB 593

Jamieson v. Denman (2004), 365 A.R. 201 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] A.R. TBEd. AU.070

Ronald Ian Jamieson, also known as Ian R. Jamieson, 753067 Alberta Ltd. and Ronald Ian Jamieson, also known as Ian R. Jamieson operating as Lonely Chef Productions and as Spectra Holdings and as Triple "O" Seven (plaintiffs/respondents) v. Clare Denman, Kathleen Denman, Tessa Denman and Nicholas Denman (defendants/applicants being Kathleen Denman, Tessa Denman and Nicholas Denman)

(0303 20077; 2004 ABQB 593)

Indexed As: Jamieson et al. v. Denman et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Watson, J.

August 3, 2004.

Summary:

A wife commenced a divorce and matrimonial property action. Days later, she removed selected property from what she alleged was the matrimonial home with the assistance of her mother, brother and sister. The husband and his company sued the wife and her family members alleging torts of conspiracy, intentional interference with economic relations or conspiracy to do the same, breach of copyright, unjust enrichment, and the torts of conversion, detinue, trespass and damage by negligence and abuse of the legal process respecting their removal of the property. The family members sought summary judgment dismissing the action against them. A Master dismissed the application. The family members appealed.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the appeal and dismissed the action against the family members.

Company Law - Topic 312

Nature of corporations - Lifting the corporate veil - Principals - "Directing mind and will" of company - A wife commenced a divorce and matrimonial property action - Days later, she removed selected property from what she alleged was the matrimonial home with the assistance of three members of her family - The husband and his company sued the wife and her family alleging numerous torts respecting their removal of the property - The wife's family sought to dismiss the action against them - They argued that the action was, inter alia, scandalous, frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of process given the wife's pre-existing action - The husband argued that the company was a legal entity separate enough in law and fact to sustain the action against the wife and her family - The husband was the sole director of the company - The sole shareholder was a holding company - The husband was the sole shareholder of the holding company - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the husband was the sole operating mind of the company - The company's claim in the action was really the husband's claim -To the extent that the corporate veil should be penetrated in this context, the court would do so - See paragraphs 139 to 143.

Practice - Topic 2231

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - False, frivolous, vexatious or scandalous - Rule 129(1)(b) of the Rules of Court provided that the court could strike out any pleading on the ground that it was scandalous, frivolous or vexatious - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench discussed the meaning of the word "vexatious" in that context - The court stated, inter alia, that "'Vexatious', as a word, means to me that the litigant's mental state goes beyond simple animus against the other side, and rises to a situation where the litigant actually is attempting to abuse or misuse the legal process ... In other words, mere bad or selfish motive might not be sufficient to establish vexatiousness. On the other hand, bad or selfish motive might likewise not be absolutely necessary to establish vexatiousness although it seems likely that bad or selfish motives would tend to co-exist with using the legal process in bad faith and vexatiously." - See paragraphs 126 to 131.

Practice - Topic 5370

Dismissal of action - Grounds - General and want of prosecution - Frivolous or vexatious actions - A wife commenced a divorce and matrimonial property action - Days later, she removed selected property from what she alleged was the matrimonial home with the assistance of three members of the wife's family - The husband and his corporation sued the wife and her family alleging numerous torts, including trespass and wrongful conspiracy - The wife's family sought the dismissal of the action against them - Rule 129(1)(b) of the Rules of Court provided that the court could strike out any pleading on the ground that it was scandalous, frivolous or vexatious - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that at least part of the husband's action was vexatious within the meaning of rule 129(b) of the Rules of Court to the extent that there was a risk of adjudicative inconsistency or conflict between the husband's action and the wife's pre-existing divorce and matrimonial property action - See paragraphs 180 to 181.

Torts - Topic 5706

Conspiracy - General - Conspiracy - What constitutes - A wife commenced a divorce and matrimonial property action - Days later, she removed selected property from what she alleged was the matrimonial home with the assistance of three members of the wife's family - The husband and his corporation sued the wife and her family alleging numerous torts, including wrongful conspiracy to do harm to the husband and his corporation by the removal of business related items from the property - The wife's family sought the dismissal of the action against them - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held, inter alia, that there was no reasonably triable case of conspiracy with intent to injure or knowledge of illegality, or of damages related to the alleged conspiracy on the part of the wife's family - The family's conduct in helping the wife remove her property and household goods did not belong in a separate conspiracy lawsuit - See paragraphs 151 to 164.

Words and Phrases

Vexatious - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench discussed the meaning of this word as used in rule 129(1)(b) of the Rules of Court - See paragraphs 126 to 131.

Cases Noticed:

Miglin v. Miglin, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 303; 302 N.R. 201; 171 O.A.C. 201; 34 R.F.L.(5th) 252; 224 D.L.R.(4th) 193; 66 O.R.(3d) 736; 2003 CarswellOnt 1374; 2003 SCC 24, refd to. [para. 23, footnote 6].

Hartshorne v. Hartshorne (2004), 318 N.R. 1; 194 B.C.A.C. 161; 317 W.A.C. 161; 236 D.L.R.(4th) 193; 47 R.F.L.(5th) 5; 25 B.C.L.R.(4th) 1; 2004 CarswellBC 603; 2004 SCC 22, refd to. [para. 23, footnote 6].

General Motors Acceptance Corp. of Canada Ltd. v. Sherwood (1991), 121 A.R. 133 (Q.B.), affd. (1992), 135 A.R. 53; 33 W.A.C. 53 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 77, footnote 11].

General Motors Acceptance Corp. of Canada Ltd. v. Isaac et al. (1992), 136 A.R. 294 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 77, footnote 12].

Director of Investigation and Research, Competition Act v. Southam Inc. et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 748; 209 N.R. 20; 144 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 71 C.P.R.(3d) 417; 50 Admin. L.R.(2d) 199; 1997 CarswellNat 368, refd to. [para. 78, footnote 13].

Trout Lake Store Inc. v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce et al. (2002), 307 A.R. 190; 2002 CarswellAlta 1152 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 78, footnote 14].

Menduk v. Gore Mutual Insurance Co. (1969), 67 W.W.R.(N.S.) 573; 1969 CarswellAlta 12 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 79, footnote 16].

Willman et al. v. Coreman and Administrator, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act (1979), 17 A.R. 608; 11 Alta. L.R.(2d) 110; 107 D.L.R.(3d) 191; 1979 CarswellAlta 63 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 80, footnote 17].

Wright v. Disposal Services Ltd. and Marsh (1977), 8 A.R. 394; 4 Alta. L.R.(2d) 173; 80 D.L.R.(3d) 671 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 80, footnote 18].

Alberta Wheat Pool v. Nahajowicz, [1930] 1 W.W.R. 483 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 81, footnote 19].

Mercantile Bank of Canada v. Keen Industries Ltd. and McLennan Ross - see McLennan Ross v. Keen Industries Ltd. (No. 2).

McLennan Ross v. Keen Industries Ltd. (No. 2) (1988), 86 A.R. 311; 59 Alta. L.R.(2d) 369; 1988 CarswellAlta 90 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 81, footnote 20].

274099 Alberta Ltd. v. West Edmonton Mall Shopping Centre Ltd. et al. (1990), 114 A.R. 57; 75 Alta. L.R.(2d) 389; 1990 CarswellAlta 141 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 81, footnote 21].

Canada v. Aqua-Gem Investments Ltd., [1993] 1 C.T.C. 186; 149 N.R. 273; [1993] 2 F.C. 425; 93 D.T.C. 5080; 1993 CarswellNat 855 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 81, footnote 22].

United Utility Workers Association of Canada et al. v. TransAlta Corp. et al. (2004), 354 A.R. 58; 329 W.A.C. 58; 2004 CarswellAlta 897; 2004 ABCA 200, refd to. [para. 82, footnote 23].

Ghermezian v. Corey Developments Inc. et al. (2001), 302 A.R. 47; 10 Alta. L.R.(4th) 231; 2001 ABQB 914, refd to. [para. 98, footnote 26].

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

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; 4 C.C.L.T.(2d) 1; 43 C.P.C.(2d) 105; 49 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273, refd to. [para. 98, footnote 27].

Metropolitan Railway Co. v. Jackson (1877), 3 App. Cas. 193 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 100, footnote 28].

Birkenhead Resort Ltd. et al. v. Bemister (2001), 150 B.C.A.C. 192; 245 W.A.C. 192; 87 B.C.L.R.(3d) 172; 2001 CarswellBC 455; 2001 BCCA 178, refd to. [para. 100, footnote 28].

R. v. Morabito (F.J.), [1949] S.C.R. 172; 7 C.R. 88; 93 C.C.C. 251; [1949] 1 D.L.R. 609; 1949 CarswellOnt 1, refd to. [para. 100, footnote 29].

R. v. Mezzo, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 802; 68 N.R. 1; 43 Man.R.(2d) 161; 52 C.R.(3d) 113; [1986] 4 W.W.R. 577; 27 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 30 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 1986 CarswellMan 327, refd to. [para. 100, footnote 29].

R. v. Charemski (J.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 679; 224 N.R. 120; 108 O.A.C. 126; 123 C.C.C.(3d) 225; 15 C.R.(5th) 1; 157 D.L.R.(4th) 603; 1998 CarswellOnt 1199, refd to. [para. 100, footnote 29].

R. v. Arcuri (G.), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 828; 274 N.R. 274; 150 O.A.C. 126; 157 C.C.C.(3d) 21; 44 C.R.(5th) 213; 203 D.L.R.(4th) 20; 2001 CarswellOnt 3083; 2001 SCC 54, refd to. [para. 100, footnote 29].

R. v. Fontaine (J.) (2004), 318 N.R. 371; 183 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 18 C.R.(6th) 203; 237 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 2004 CarswellQue 814; 2004 SCC 27, refd to. [para. 100, footnote 30].

R. v. Cinous (J.), [2002] 2 S.C.R. 3; 285 N.R. 1; 162 C.C.C.(3d) 242; 210 D.L.R.(4th) 64; 49 C.R.(5th) 209; 2002 CarswellQue 261; 2002 SCC 29, refd to. [para. 100, footnote 30].

Balm v. BHC Securities Inc. (2003), 339 A.R. 179; 312 W.A.C. 179; 2003 CarswellAlta 1429; 2003 ABCA 284, refd to. [para. 105, footnote 31].

Prefontaine v. Veale et al. (2003), 339 A.R. 340; 312 W.A.C. 340; 24 Alta. L.R.(4th) 223; 2003 CarswellAlta 1773; 2003 ABCA 367, refd to. [para. 106, footnote 32].

Edwards et al. v. Law Society of Upper Canada et al., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 562; 277 N.R. 145; 153 O.A.C. 388; 206 D.L.R.(4th) 211; 2001 CarswellOnt 3962; 34 Admin. L.R.(3d) 38; 8 C.C.L.T.(3d) 153; 56 O.R.(3d) 456; 2001 SCC 80, refd to. [para. 112, footnote 33].

Cooper v. Hobart - see Cooper v. Registrar of Mortgage Brokers (B.C.) et al.

Cooper v. Registrar of Mortgage Brokers (B.C.) et al., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 537; 277 N.R. 113; 160 B.C.A.C. 268; 261 W.A.C. 268; [2002] 1 W.W.R. 221; 206 D.L.R.(4th) 193; 96 B.C.L.R.(3d) 36; 8 C.C.L.T.(3d) 26; 2001 CarswellBC 2502; 2001 SCC 79, refd to. [para. 112, footnote 34].

Frame v. Smith and Smith, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 99; 78 N.R. 40; 23 O.A.C. 84; 9 R.F.L.(3d) 225; 42 C.C.L.T. 1; 42 D.L.R.(4th) 81; [1988] 1 C.N.L.R. 152; 1987 CarswellOnt 347, refd to. [para. 115, footnote 35].

McKinley v. BC Tel et al., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 161; 271 N.R. 16; 153 B.C.A.C. 161; 251 W.A.C. 161; 200 D.L.R.(4th) 385; [2001] 8 W.W.R. 199; 91 B.C.L.R.(3d) 1; 2001 C.C.L.C. 210-027; 2001 CarswellBC 1335; 9 C.C.E.L.(3d) 167; 2001 SCC 38, refd to. [para. 116, footnote 36].

Peterson et al. v. Highwood Distillers Ltd. et al. (1998), 216 A.R. 83; 175 W.A.C. 83; 158 D.L.R.(4th) 569; 61 Alta. L.R.(3d) 365; 23 C.P.C.(4th) 126; 1998 CarswellAlta 294 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 120, footnote 37].

Kvaerner Enviropower Inc. v. Tanar Industries Ltd. et al., [1999] 2 W.W.R. 82; 223 A.R. 348; 183 W.A.C. 348; 40 C.L.R.(2d) 254; 64 Alta. L.R.(3d) 144; 1998 CarswellAlta 853 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 120, footnote 38].

Decock et al. v. Alberta et al., [2000] 7 W.W.R. 219; 255 A.R. 234; 220 W.A.C. 234; 79 Alta. L.R.(3d) 11; 186 D.L.R.(4th) 265 (C.A.), leave to appeal granted (2000), 266 N.R. 200; 293 A.R. 388; 257 W.A.C. 388; 2000 CarswellAlta 1366 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 120, footnote 39].

McEwen v. North-West Coal and Navigation Co. (1889), 1 Terr. L.R. 203 (N.W.T.C.A.), refd to. [para. 121, footnote 40].

Guccione v. Bell et al. (1999), 239 A.R. 277 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 121, footnote 40].

Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co. et al., [2002] 1 S.C.R. 595; 283 N.R. 1; 156 O.A.C. 201; 209 D.L.R.(4th) 257; [2002] I.L.R. 1-4048; 20 B.L.R.(3d) 165; 2002 CarswellOnt 538; 2002 SCC 18, refd to. [para. 124, footnote 41].

Foy v. Foy (1979), 12 C.P.C. 188; 26 O.R.(2d) 220; 102 D.L.R.(3d) 142; 1979 CarswellOnt 458 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1979), 31 N.R. 120; 26 O.R.(2d) 220; 102 D.L.R.(3d) 142; 12 C.P.C. 188 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 126, footnote 42].

Foy v. Foy (1978), 3 R.F.L.(2d) 286; 1978 CarswellOnt 253; 20 O.R.(2d) 747; 9 C.P.C. 141; 88 D.L.R.(3d) 761 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 126, footnote 42].

Mascan Corp. v. French (1988), 26 O.A.C. 326; 64 O.R.(2d) 1; 49 D.L.R.(4th) 434; 1988 CarswellOnt 1031 (C.A.), affing. [1986] O.J. No. 293 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 128, footnote 44].

Lang Michener Lash Johnston v. Fabian and Napraforgo Construction Ltd. (1987), 59 O.R.(2d) 53; 37 D.L.R.(4th) 685; 1987 CarswellOnt 378; 16 C.P.C.(2d) 93 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 130, footnote 46].

Sherman v. Giles (1994), 137 N.S.R.(2d) 52; 391 A.P.R. 52; 1994 CarswellNS 280 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 130, footnote 46].

Hurley v. Co-operators General Insurance Co. (1998), 169 N.S.R.(2d) 22; 508 A.P.R. 22; 1998 CarswellNS 184; 160 D.L.R.(4th) 645; 7 C.C.L.I.(3d) 55 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 130, footnote 46].

Osborne v. Pinno and Milligan (1997), 208 A.R. 363; 56 Alta. L.R.(3d) 404; 19 C.P.C.(4th) 383; 1997 CarswellAlta 880 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 130, footnote 46].

Grovit et al. v. Doctor et al., [1997] 2 All E.R. 417; [1997] 1 W.L.R. 640 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 130, footnote 46].

Goldsmith v. Sperrings Ltd., [1977] 2 All E.R. 556; [1977] 1 W.L.R. 478 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 130, footnote 46].

Danyluk v. Ainsworth Technologies Inc. et al., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 460; 272 N.R. 1; 149 O.A.C. 1; 201 D.L.R.(4th) 193; 54 O.R.(3d) 214; 10 C.C.E.L.(3d) 1; 7 C.P.C.(5th) 199; 2001 C.L.L.C. 210-033; 34 Admin. L.R.(3d) 163; 2001 CarswellOnt 2434; 2001 SCC 44, refd to. [para. 132, footnote 47].

Thompson v. Thompson, [2003] A.R. Uned. 598 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 136, footnote 48].

Burmi v. Dhiman, [2001] O.T.C. Uned. 480 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 137, footnote 49].

Helmy v. Helmy et al., [2000] O.T.C. 834 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 137, footnote 50].

Miller v. Miller (1992), 42 R.F.L.(3d) 278 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 137, footnote 51].

Gabriel v. Gabriel and Keith of London & Boutique Ltd. (1980), 20 A.R. 189; 14 R.F.L.(2d) 174; 12 Alta. L.R.(2d) 1; 1980 CarswellAlta 12 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 139, footnote 52].

Shuler v. Shuler (1986), 3 R.F.L.(3d) 9; 1986 CarswellAlta 462 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 139, footnote 53].

Derochie et al. v. Derochie et al., 2003 CarswellAlta 924; 2003 ABQB 345, refd to. [para. 139, footnote 54].

Broda v. Broda et al. (2001), 306 A.R. 301; 2001 CarswellAlta 1876 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 139, footnote 55].

Tennant v. Minister of National Revenue, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 305; 192 N.R. 365; 132 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 96 D.T.C. 6121; [1996] 1 C.T.C. 290; 1996 CarswellNat 421, refd to. [para. 141, footnote 56].

Kosmopoulos et al. v. Continental Insurance Co. of Canada et al., [1987] 1 S.C.R. 2; 74 N.R. 360; 21 O.A.C. 4; 36 B.L.R. 233; 22 C.C.L.I. 296; [1987] I.L.R. 1-2147; 34 D.L.R.(4th) 208; 1987 CarswellOnt 132, refd to. [para. 142, footnote 57].

Canada Cement LaFarge Ltd. et al. v. British Columbia Lightweight Aggregate Ltd. et al., [1983] 1 S.C.R. 452; 47 N.R. 191; [1983] 6 W.W.R. 385; 21 B.L.R. 254; 145 D.L.R.(3d) 385; 24 C.C.L.T. 111; 72 C.P.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 153, footnote 59].

Saskatchewan Wheat Pool v. Canada, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 205; 45 N.R. 425; [1983] 3 W.W.R. 97; 23 C.C.L.T. 121; 143 D.L.R.(3d) 9, refd to. [para. 153, footnote 60].

Belmont Furniture Corp. v. Williams Furniture Ltd. et al. (No. 2), [1980] 1 All E.R. 393 (C.A. Civ. Div.), refd to. [para. 155, footnote 62].

Korte et al. v. Deloitte Haskins & Sells et al. (1993), 135 A.R. 389; 33 W.A.C. 389; 8 Alta. L.R.(3d) 337; 15 C.P.C.(3d) 109; 1993 CarswellAlta 30 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 164, footnote 66].

Becker v. Pettkus, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 834; 34 N.R. 384; 19 R.F.L.(2d) 165; 8 E.T.R. 143; 117 D.L.R.(3d) 257; 1980 CarswellOnt 299, refd to. [para. 171, footnote 67].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court (Alta.), rule 129(1)(b) [para. 119].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Fridman, Gerald Henry Louis, The Law of Torts in Canada (2nd Ed. 2002), pp. 764 [para. 153, footnote 61]; 765, 766, 767 [para. 157, footnote 63].

Kerans, Roger P., Standards of Review Employed by Appellate Courts (1994), pp. 29 to 51, 146 to 149 [para. 77, footnote 10].

Counsel:

Chad Brown (McLennan Ross), for the applicants;

Daniel Palamar (Hajduk & Gibbs), for the respondents.

This appeal was heard on July 26, 2004, by Watson, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who released the following decision on August 3, 2004.