Lastiwka et al. v. TD Waterhouse Investor Services (Canada) Inc. et al., (2005) 385 A.R. 353 (QB)

• Judge: Watson, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: August 24, 2005
• Citations: (2005), 385 A.R. 353 (QB);2005 ABQB 782

Lastiwka v. TD Waterhouse Inv. (2005), 385 A.R. 353 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] A.R. TBEd. DE.080

George Lastiwka, Focal Investment Management Ltd., CYA International Ltd., WHAML Investigations Ltd. and Turcan Services Ltd. (plaintiffs) v. TD Waterhouse Investor Services (Canada) Inc. formerly known as CT Securities Inc. (defendants) and Tri-Land Securities Ltd., Tri-Land Securities (1999) Ltd., Terrance Arthur Bray and Kenneth Bray (third parties)

(0003-14667; 2005 ABQB 782)

Indexed As: Lastiwka et al. v. TD Waterhouse Investor Services (Canada) Inc. et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Watson, J.

August 24, 2005.

Summary:

The plaintiffs sued the defendants for breach of contract or warranty, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and wilful misconduct. The defendants launched third party proceedings. In orders issued in March and May 2005, the court ordered that, inter alia, discovery of the third party, Bray, be completed by July 30, 2005. Bray did not comply. The plaintiffs applied for an order finding Bray in contempt.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application. The court ordered that Bray purge his contempt by attending at the convenience of the plaintiffs to be examined prior to September 15, 2005, and that Bray pay the thrown away costs for the examination that should have occurred on July 26, 2005. In addition, the court ordered that Bray post security for costs to avoid any further delay.

Contempt - Topic 6

General - Power of courts - The plaintiffs sued the defendants for breach of contract or warranty, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and wilful misconduct - The defendants launched third party proceedings - In orders issued in March and May 2005, the court ordered that, inter alia, discovery of the third party, Bray, be completed by July 30, 2005 - Bray did not comply - The plaintiffs applied for an order finding Bray in contempt under rule 702(1) of the Rules of Court - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the fact that the plaintiffs had not sued Bray directly did not prevent the plaintiffs from bringing an application against Bray, as within the definition of "any person" in rule 702(1) - Likewise, the sanction authority contemplated under Rule 704, namely to take a whole variety of different alternative remedial steps against a contemner, was not limited to a situation where the contemner was a direct linked party in the litigation against the person complaining against that particular alleged contemner because it also talked about "any person" - See paragraphs 39 to 45.

Contempt - Topic 684

What constitutes contempt - Judgments and orders - Disobedience of or non compliance with - The plaintiffs sued the defendants for breach of contract or warranty, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and wilful misconduct - The defendants launched third party proceedings - In orders issued in March and May 2005, the court ordered that, inter alia, discovery of the third party, Bray, be completed by July 30, 2005 - Bray did not comply - The plaintiffs applied for an order finding Bray in contempt - Bray's counsel argued that the non compliance was his responsibility because he was not available to participate in the examination for discovery by the end of July 2005 because he had certain holidays - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench rejected the argument and found Bray in contempt - Bray was aware of the consequences of failing to attend discovery and was prepared to let it happen - That was sufficient to constitute the mental state necessary for civil contempt - See paragraphs 64 to 80.

Contempt - Topic 695

What constitutes contempt - Judgments and orders - Undertaking by party - [See Contempt - Topic 684 ].

Contempt - Topic 1003

What constitutes contempt - Legal process - Discovery - [See Contempt - Topic 684 ].

Contempt - Topic 3302

Punishment - Dismissal of pleadings, action or appeal or bar to further proceedings - The plaintiffs sued the defendants for breach of contract or warranty, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and wilful misconduct - The defendants launched third party proceedings - In orders issued in March and May 2005, the court ordered that, inter alia, discovery of the third party, Bray, be completed by July 30, 2005 - Bray did not comply - The plaintiffs applied for an order finding Bray in contempt - The plaintiffs sought an order striking out Bray's statement of defence, noting him in default and prohibiting him from introducing any evidence or giving testimony in the action - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench found Bray in contempt but declined to grant the remedy sought by the plaintiffs - The defendants would be seriously prejudiced by such a remedy - That remedy would have been more effective as against the defendants than it would have been against Bray - See paragraphs 81 to 87.

Contempt - Topic 3304

Punishment - Purging of contempt - The plaintiffs sued the defendants for breach of contract or warranty, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and wilful misconduct - The defendants launched third party proceedings - In orders issued in March and May 2005, the court ordered that, inter alia, discovery of the third party, Bray, be completed by July 30, 2005 - Bray did not comply - The plaintiffs applied for an order finding Bray in contempt - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application - The court ordered that Bray purge his contempt by attending at the convenience of the plaintiffs to be examined prior to September 15, 2005, and that Bray pay the thrown away costs for the examination that should have occurred on July 26, 2005 - In addition, the court ordered that Bray post security for costs to avoid any further delay - See paragraphs 104 to 109.

Contempt - Topic 3315.1

Punishment - Monetary orders - [See Contempt - Topic 3304 ].

Contempt - Topic 5010

Practice - General principles - Persons entitled to commence proceedings - [See Contempt - Topic 6 ].

Practice - Topic 8102

Costs - Security for costs - General principles - Persons against whom security may be ordered - [See Contempt - Topic 3304 ].

Cases Noticed:

Foss v. Harbottle (1843), 67 E.R. 189; 2 Hare 461 (Eng. V.C.), refd to. [para. 6, footnote 2].

Hercules Management Ltd. et al. v. Ernst & Young et al., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 165; 211 N.R. 352; 115 Man.R.(2d) 241; 139 W.A.C. 241l; 1997 CarswellMan 198, refd to. [para. 6, footnote 2].

Lastiwka et al. v. TD Waterhouse Investor Services (Canada) Inc. et al., 2002 CarswellAlta 1345; 2002 ABQB 979, refd to. [para. 6, footnote 2].

United Pacific Capital Ltd. v. Piché et al., (2005), 210 B.C.A.C. 214; 348 W.A.C. 214; 2005 CarswellBC 634; 2005 BCCA 160, refd to. [para. 34, footnote 5].

R. v. Consolidated Maybrun Mines Ltd. et al., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 706; 225 N.R. 41; 108 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 38, footnote 6].

R. v. Klippert (Al) Ltd., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 737; 225 N.R. 107; 216 A.R. 1; 175 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 38, footnote 6].

R. v. Litchfield, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 333; 161 N.R. 161; 145 A.R. 321; 55 W.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 38, footnote 6].

R. v. Pastro (1988), 66 Sask.R. 241; 42 C.C.C.(3d) 485 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38, footnote 6].

Bains Engineering Corp. v. 734560 Alberta Ltd. et al. (2005), 367 A.R. 125; 346 W.A.C. 125; 2005 ABCA 187, affing. (2004), 366 A.R. 291; 2004 ABQB 780, refd to. [para. 38, footnote 7].

Bhatnager v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 217; 111 N.R. 185, refd to. [para. 52, footnote 12].

Poje v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1953] 1 S.C.R. 516, refd to. [para. 52, footnote 12].

Vidéotron Ltée et Premier Choix: TVEC Inc. v. Industries Microlec produits électroniques Inc. et autres, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 1065; 141 N.R. 281; 50 Q.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 52, footnote 12].

Kimpton v. Eve (1813), 35 E.R. 352 (Ch. D.), refd to. [para. 53, footnote 13].

Ex parte Langley (1879), 13 Ch. D. 110 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 53, footnote 13].

Baxter Laboratories of Canada Ltd., Travenol Laboratories Inc. and Baxter Travenol Laboratories Inc. v. Cutter (Canada) Ltd., [1983] 2 S.C.R. 388; 50 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 53, footnote 13].

R. v. Jorgensen (R.) et al., [1995] 4 S.C.R. 55; 189 N.R. 1; 87 O.A.C. 1; 102 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 55, footnote 15].

Broda v. Broda et al. (2004), 346 A.R. 372; 320 W.A.C. 372; 2004 ABCA 72, affing. (2001), 306 A.R. 301 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 60, footnote 16].

Michel v. Lafrentz et al. (1998), 219 A.R. 192; 179 W.A.C. 192; 1998 ABCA 231, refd to. [para. 60, footnote 16].

Topgro Greenhouses Ltd. et al. v. Houweling (2003), 184 B.C.A.C. 118; 302 W.A.C. 118; 2003 BCCA 355, refd to. [para. 60, footnote 16].

R. v. Perkins, [1980] 4 W.W.R. 763 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 60, footnote 16].

Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Hover (1999), 237 A.R. 30; 197 W.A.C. 30; 1999 ABCA 123, refd to. [para. 60, footnote 17].

Avery v. Andrews (1882), 51 L.J. Ch. 414; 30 W.R. 564, refd to. [para. 75, footnote 20].

Glazer v. Union Contractors Ltd. et al. (1960), 34 W.W.R.(N.S.) 690; 26 D.L.R.(2d) 349; 129 C.C.C. 150 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 76, footnote 21].

VDU Installations v. Integrated Computer Systems & Cybernetics (July 18), The Times, August 13, 1988, refd to. [para. 76, footnote 21].

Dimatt Investments Inc. v. Presidio Clothing Inc. (1993), 62 F.T.R. 142; 48 C.P.R.(3d) 46 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 76, footnote 21].

Tuvalu (Attorney General) v. Philatelic Distribution Corp., [1990] 1 W.L.R. 926 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 76, footnote 21].

Baxter Travenol Laboratories Inc. v. Cutter (Canada) Ltd., [1987] 2 F.C. 557; 81 N.R. 220 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 76, footnote 21].

Sculthorp (H.) & Son Ltd. v. Sculthorp (1926), 30 O.W.N. 340 (H.C.), affd. (1926), 31 O.W.N. 133 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 76, footnote 21].

R. v. Lennock (1993), 97 Cr. App. R. 228 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 76, footnote 21].

R. v. Souter (D.N.) (1998), 216 A.R. 292; 175 W.A.C. 292 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 79, footnote 23].

LePage Lumber Co. v. Werenka (No. 2) (1957), 20 W.W.R.(N.S.) 690; 1957 CarswellAlta 8 (Alta. S.C.), refd to. [para. 85, footnote 25].

Dreco Energy Services Ltd. et al. v. Wenzel et al. (2005), 371 A.R. 11; 354 W.A.C. 11; 2005 ABCA 185, reving. (2004), 365 A.R. 344; 2004 ABQB 517, refd to. [para. 86, footnote 26].

iTrade Finance Inc. v. Webworx Inc. et al., [2005] O.T.C. Uned. 322; 255 D.L.R.(4th) 748; 2005 CarswellOnt 2982 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 86, footnote 27].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Arlidge, Anthony, Eady, David, and Smith, A.T.H., Contempt (2nd Ed. 1999), paras. 12-72; 12-73 [para. 55, footnote 14].

Counsel:

Kenneth W. Fitz (McLennan Ross LLP), for the plaintiffs;

Sharon R. Stefanyk (Field LLP), for the defendants;

Norman D. Anderson (Shea Nerland Calnan), for the third parties.

This application was heard on August 24, 2005, by Watson, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following reasons for judgment orally on August 24, 2005 with written reasons filed on October 21, 2005.