Malton v. Attia et al., 2015 ABQB 135

• Judge: Moen, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: May 06, 2013
• Citations: 2015 ABQB 135;(2015), 611 A.R. 200 (QB)

Malton v. Attia (2015), 611 A.R. 200 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] A.R. TBEd. MR.035

Janette Malton and John Malton (plaintiffs) v. Ashraf S. Attia also known as Sam Attia, Ashraf S. Attia, also known as Sam Attia Professional Corporation, Attia Reeves Tensfeldt Snow (defendants A) and Dr. Brian Pasemco, Dr. Brian Pasemco Professional Corporation, Lucie Bernier, Lucie Bernier Professional Corporation, Dr. John Doe, Dr. John Doe Professional Corporation, Stony Plain Dental Centre (defendants B) and Dr. Mangi Tauh, Dr. Mangi Tauh Professional Corporation, Meadowlark Family Clinic, Youssef Wafaa (defendants C) and Dr. Parvis Sumani, Dr. Parvis Sumani Professional Corporation, Parkland Medical Clinic also known as Parkland Medical & Parkland Medical Associates (defendants D) and Dr. Hess Boschma, Dr. Hess Boschma Professional Corporation, Wabamun Medical Clinic (defendants E) and Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of Alberta (defendant F)

(0803 08190; 2015 ABQB 135)

Indexed As: Malton v. Attia et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Moen, J.

February 26, 2015.

Summary:

The plaintiffs hired the defendant lawyer and his law firm to represent them in their lawsuit against HouseMaster Inspection Service for a deficient house inspection. The plaintiffs were partially successful (see Whighton et al. v. Integrity Inspections Inc. et al. (2007), 418 A.R. 222). In limiting the plaintiffs' damages to an amount far less than expected, the trial judge commented that the evidence presented by the defendant lawyer "as is related to damages was decidedly unhelpful". The plaintiffs made a complaint to the Law Society of Alberta with respect to the defendant's management of the HouseMaster action. In June 2008, the plaintiffs brought a negligence action for damages against the defendant. After the trial ended, the defendant requested that the court address one issue before the parties would argue the whole case. At issue was whether it was fatal to the plaintiffs' negligence action that they failed to call expert evidence as to the standard of care.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a judgment reported (2013), 573 A.R. 200, held that expert evidence was not necessary for the court to evaluate whether the defendant lawyer was negligent in the conduct of the action.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench found the defendant liable in negligence. The court awarded $359,000 consequential damages, $10,000 punitive damages, prejudgment interest and costs to be determined. The defendant was also ordered to pay to Legal Aid Alberta $25,000 in punitive damages for the defendant's egregious breach of solicitor-client privilege owed to other clients.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 2501

Negligence - General principles - Standard of care - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench adopted the following description of a lawyer's standard of care: "The standard of care and skill which can be demanded from a lawyer is that of a reasonably competent and diligent solicitor . It is not enough to prove that the lawyer has made an error of judgment or shown ignorance of some particular part of the law; it must be shown that the error or ignorance was such that an ordinarily competent lawyer would not have made or shown it ." - The court added that "An important limit on a lawyer's standard of care is that it flows from the contract between the lawyer and the client. The scope of a lawyer's duty thus derives from the purpose for which that lawyer was retained." - See paragraphs 63, 65.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 2501

Negligence - General principles - Standard of care - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench discussed the standard of care of a lawyer conducting a lawsuit, identifying a number of basic criteria for competent legal services that operate throughout the litigation process: "1. to be skillful and careful; 2. to advise a client in all matters relevant to his or her retainer, so far as may be reasonably necessary; 3. to protect the interests of the client; 4. to carry out the client's instructions by all proper means; 5. to consult with the client on all questions of doubt which do not fall within the express or implied discretion left to the lawyer; 6. to keep the client informed to such an extent as may be reasonably necessary on issues which do not fall within the express or implied discretion left to the lawyer; 7. to warn the client of possible risks of action or inaction; 8. to call appropriate witnesses, and, in particular calling an expert if the circumstances so require; 9. to explain the nature, effect, and significance of documents; 10. to investigate potential issues and uncertain points of law; 11. to proceed or advise only on complete instructions adequate to achieve the desired result; 12. to act expeditiously where there is time sensitivity; and 13. to protect the confidentiality of the clients' files." - See paragraph 80.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 2586

Negligence - Particular negligent acts - Negligent advice - A home inspection company was liable to the plaintiffs in contract and tort for a deficient home inspection which failed to uncover multiple serious issues - The defendant lawyer representing the plaintiffs restricted his damage claim to the repair costs without advising the plaintiffs of the option of selling the house and claiming the difference between that sale price and the purchase price - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the plaintiffs' negligence action against the lawyer - The lawyer was negligent in failing to properly investigate the measure of damages - He did not advise them of their two options (sell or repair), depriving them of the better option - He was negligent in failing to obtain expert evidence to determine the extent of repairs required - These negligent actions were fundamental to the preparation of pleadings, negotiations to settle, the judicial dispute resolution process and the damages sought at trial - The lawyer was negligent in advising the plaintiffs on the scope of their duty to mitigate - Rather than advising them only to undertake repairs needed to prevent further devaluation, he erroneously advised them that they had to make full repairs, causing the plaintiffs to exhaust saved funds intended to be used to purchase rental properties - Further, the lawyer's conduct of the litigation constituted negligence - He failed to follow the plaintiffs' instructions to seek consequential loss damages to compensate them for their inability to carry forward their investment rental property scheme - The lawyer failed to proceed in a timely manner - His handling of the file delayed the litigation by at least two years - His trial preparation was slipshod, late and inadequate - He misled opposing counsel - Taken all together, his pre-trial conduct was negligent - He also conducted the trial negligently, apparently concluding that if he proved negligence by the company, the trial judge would award broad general damages rather than requiring him to prove every claim specifically and tie the damages claimed back to the company's negligence - The court stated that "it is inconceivable to me that competent litigation counsel would not know that they had to prove damages" - Post-trial conduct also was negligent, including failure to provide the trial judge's written judgment in a timely manner and failing to provide the plaintiffs with an adequate opportunity to exercise their right of appeal - Causation was established where "but for" the lawyer's incompetence the plaintiffs would have chosen the option of selling the house and suing for the difference in value - The court awarded $359,000 consequential damages for the house and the loss of investment of their planned opportunity to invest in two rental properties due to using all of their savings on repair costs, $75,000 general damages for each plaintiff for the increased stress, inconvenience, etc., of the negligently conducted litigation, and $10,000 punitive damages for the lawyer's dishonesty in dealing with the plaintiffs' complaint to the Law Society - Further, the lawyer egregiously breached solicitor-client privilege owed to other clients in the action against the company - This merited $25,000 punitive damages, which was ordered to be paid to Legal Aid Alberta.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 2594

Negligence - Particular negligent acts - Failure to inform or advise client - [See Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 2586 ].

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 2599.9

Negligence - Particular negligent acts - Re conduct of trial - [See Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 2586 ].

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 2670

Negligence - Damages - General damages for aggravation, anguish and inconvenience - Mental distress - [See Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 2586 ].

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 2674

Negligence - Damages - Exemplary or punitive - [See Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 2586 ].

Damages - Topic 1001

Mitigation - General principles - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that: "Three rules guide mitigation. The first is that the injured party is under a duty to take all reasonable steps to mitigate the loss consequent on the breach. Failure to comply with this first rule will bar the injured party from claiming any part of the damage that results from that party's neglect to take such steps. The second rule of mitigation is related to the first: where an injured party takes reasonable steps to stop further damage from occurring, the injured party can recover the losses incurred in that process ... The third rule is that mitigation is required once the injured party becomes aware of that injury ... A reasonable mitigation strategy is a fact specific question." - See paragraphs 173 to 176.

Cases Noticed:

Workers' Compensation Board (B.C.) v. Human Rights Tribunal (B.C.) et al., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 422; 421 N.R. 338; 311 B.C.A.C. 1; 529 W.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 52, refd to. [para. 28, footnote 3].

White v. R., [1947] S.C.R. 268; 1947 CarswellOnt 8; 1947 CanLII 1, refd to. [para. 37, footnote 4].

Van Duzen v. Lecovin, [2004] B.C.T.C. Uned. 641; 2004 BCSC 1333, refd to. [para. 53, footnote 5].

Finch v. Ross, Todd & Co. et al. (2006), 384 A.R. 133; 367 W.A.C. 133; 2006 ABCA 98, refd to. [para. 56, footnote 6].

ter Neuzen v. Korn - see Neuzen v. Korn.

Neuzen v. Korn, [1995] 3 S.C.R. 674; 188 N.R. 161; 64 B.C.A.C. 241; 105 W.A.C. 241; 127 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [para. 58, footnote 7].

Central Trust Co. v. Rafuse and Cordon, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 147; 69 N.R. 321; 75 N.S.R.(2d) 109; 186 A.P.R. 109; 31 D.L.R.(4th) 481, refd to. [para. 62, footnote 8].

Spence v. Bell (1982), 39 A.R. 239; 1982 ABCA 282, refd to. [para. 63, footnote 9].

Tiffin Holdings Ltd. v. Millican (1965), 49 D.L.R.(2d) 216; 50 W.W.R.(N.S.) 673 (Alta. S.C.), revd. (1966), 53 D.L.R.(2d) 674; 53 W.W.R.(N.S.) 505 (C.A.), revd. [1967] S.C.R. 183; 60 D.L.R.(2d) 469, refd to. [para. 63, footnote 9].

G.F. et al. v. Reardon (2005), 194 O.A.C. 201; 74 O.R.(3d) 688 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 64, footnote 10].

Adeshina v. Litwiniuk & Co. et al. (2010), 483 A.R. 81; 2010 ABQB 80, refd to. [para. 68, footnote 13].

Midland Bank Trust v. Hett, Stubbs & Kemp, [1978] 3 All E.R. 571 (Ch. D.), refd to. [para. 68, footnote 14].

Watts Estate et al. v. Contact Canada Tourism Services Ltd. et al. (2002), 319 A.R. 282; 2002 ABQB 498, refd to. [para. 69, footnote 15].

Yen v. Bozic et al., [2012] A.R. Uned. 804; 2012 ABQB 718, refd to. [para. 69, footnote 15].

285614 Alberta Ltd. and Maplesden v. Burnet, Duckworth & Palmer and Spackman (1993), 139 A.R. 31; 8 Alta. L.R.(3d) 212 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 73, footnote 17].

Meier v. Rose (2012), 531 A.R. 369; 2012 ABQB 82, refd to. [para. 73, footnote 17].

Zink v. Adrian (2005), 208 B.C.A.C. 191; 344 W.A.C. 191; 2005 BCCA 93, refd to. [para. 80, footnote 20].

Gorrie v. Nielsen (1988), 92 A.R. 167; 1988 ABCA 375, refd to. [para. 80, footnote 21].

Major v. Buchanan et al. (1975), 9 O.R.(2d) 491; 61 D.L.R.(3d) 46 (H.C.J.), refd to. [para. 80, footnote 27].

Hagblom v. Henderson et al. (2003), 232 Sask.R. 81; 294 W.A.C. 81; 2003 SKCA 40, refd to. [para. 80, footnote 28].

Credit Foncier (Canada) v. Grayson et al. (1987), 61 Sask.R. 212; 7 A.C.W.S.(3d) 449 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 80, footnote 29].

Earl v. Wilhelm (1997), 160 Sask.R. 4; 40 C.C.L.T.(2d) 117 (Q.B.), varied (2000), 189 Sask.R. 71; 216 W.A.C. 71; 183 D.L.R.(4th) 45; 2000 SKCA 1, leave to appeal denied (2000), 266 N.R. 394 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 80, footnote 29].

MacCulloch v. McInnes, Cooper & Robertson (2001), 189 N.S.R.(2d) 324; 590 A.P.R. 324 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (2001), 275 N.R. 393 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 80, footnote 30].

Weary v. Ramos (2005), 385 A.R. 106; 2005 ABQB 750, refd to. [para. 80, footnote 33].

MacPherson Leslie & Tyerman LLP v. Moll (2014), 569 A.R. 69; 606 W.A.C. 69; 2014 ABCA 45, refd to. [para. 88, footnote 35].

Lepp v. Hopp, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 192; 32 N.R. 145; 22 A.R. 361; 112 D.L.R.(3d) 67, refd to. [para. 94, footnote 36].

Reibl v. Hughes, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 880; 33 N.R. 361; 114 D.L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 94, footnote 36].

Ciarlariello et al. v. Schacter et al., [1993] 2 S.C.R. 119; 151 N.R. 133; 62 O.A.C. 161; 100 D.L.R.(4th) 609, refd to. [para. 94, footnote 36].

Confederation Life Insurance Co. v. Shepherd (1992), 29 R.P.R.(2d) 271 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 111, footnote 37].

Peppiatt v. Nicol (1998), 71 O.T.C. 321 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 111, footnote 37].

Kohler v. Thorold Natural Gas Co. (1916), 52 S.C.R. 514; 1916 CarswellOnt 171, refd to. [para. 125, footnote 42].

Waterman v. IBM Canada Ltd. (2013), 452 N.R. 207; 347 B.C.A.C. 43; 593 W.A.C. 43; 2013 SCC 70, refd to. [para. 126, footnote 43].

Karrasch (D.) Construction Ltd. v. Telosky, [2010] B.C.T.C. Uned. 423; 2010 BCSC 423, refd to. [para. 131, footnote 44].

Strachan v. Barton, [1993] B.C.J. No. 1135 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 132, footnote 45].

Strata Corporation NW 1714 et al. v. Winkler (1987), 20 B.C.L.R.(2d) 16; 27 C.L.R. 225; 45 D.L.R.(4th) 741 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 132, footnote 45].

Dow & Duggan Prefabrication Ltd. v. Paquet (1992), 98 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 103; 311 A.P.R. 103; 1992 CarswellPEI 84 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 133, footnote 47].

Strata Corp. NW 1714 v. Winkler (1987), 20 B.C.L.R.(2d) 16; 27 C.L.R. 225; 46 D.L.R.(4th) 741 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 133, footnote 47].

SEDCO et al. v. Kelly (William) Holdings Ltd. et al., [1990] 4 W.W.R. 134; 83 Sask.R. 33 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 133, footnote 47].

Coates v. Young (Alec) Ltd. et al. (1998), 130 Man.R.(2d) 48; 1998 CarswellMan 400 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 133, footnote 47].

Nu-West Homes Ltd. v. Thunderbird Petroleums Ltd. (1975), 59 D.L.R.(3d) 292 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 133, footnote 48].

McKay v. Livspac Ltd. et al. (1996), 174 N.B.R.(2d) 213; 444 A.P.R. 213; 1996 CarswellNB 256 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 135, footnote 51].

Cunningham v. Insinger, [1924] S.C.R. 8; [1924] 2 D.L.R. 433, refd to. [para. 138, footnote 53].

Khaira v. Nelson (2002), 1 R.P.R. (4th) 76; 2002 BCSC 1045, refd to. [para. 139, footnote 54].

BG Checo International Ltd. v. British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 12; 147 N.R. 81; 20 B.C.A.C. 241; 35 W.A.C. 241; 99 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [para. 157, footnote 60].

Plas-Tex Canada Ltd. et al. v. Dow Chemical of Canada Ltd. et al. (2004), 357 A.R. 139; 334 W.A.C. 139; 245 D.L.R.(4th) 650; 2004 ABCA 309, refd to. [para. 157, footnote 61].

Rainbow Industrial Caterers Ltd. et al. v. Canadian National Railway Co. et al., [1991] 3 S.C.R. 3; 126 N.R. 354; 3 B.C.A.C. 1; 7 W.A.C. 1; 84 D.L.R.(4th) 291, refd to. [para. 159, footnote 63].

Baud Corp., N.V. v. Brook, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 633; 23 N.R. 181; 12 A.R. 271; 89 D.L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 168, footnote 65].

Asamera Oil Corp. v. Sea & Oil General Corp. - see Baud Corp., N.V. v. Brook.

British Westinhouse & Electric and Manufacturing Co. v. Underground Electric Railways Co. of Lond, [1912] A.C. 673 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 173, footnote 66].

Michaels et al. v. Red Deer College, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 324; 5 N.R. 99; 57 D.L.R.(3d) 386, refd to. [para. 173, footnote 66].

Canadian Western Natural Gas Co. Ltd. v. Pathfinder Surveys Ltd. (1980), 21 A.R. 459; 12 C.C.L.T. 211 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 175, footnote 68].

Janiak v. Ippolito, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 146; 57 N.R. 241; 9 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 176, footnote 69].

Costello and Dickhoff v. Calgary (City) (1997), 209 A.R. 1; 160 W.A.C. 1 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (1998), 227 N.R. 149 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 176, footnote 70].

Silvaniuk v. Stevens (1999), 244 A.R. 75; 209 W.A.C. 75 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 176, footnote 70].

Panarctic Oils Ltd. v. Menasco Manufacturing Co. (1983), 41 A.R. 451 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 178, footnote 72].

Guest v. Bonderove & Co. et al. (1988), 88 A.R. 277 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 490, footnote 84].

Blackwater et al. v. Plint et al., [2001] B.C.T.C. 997; 93 B.C.L.R.(3d) 228; 2001 BCSC 997, varied (2003), 192 B.C.A.C. 1; 315 W.A.C. 1; 235 D.L.R.(4th) 60; 2003 BCCA 671, affd. [2005] 3 S.C.R. 3; 339 N.R. 355; 216 B.C.A.C. 24; 356 W.A.C. 24; 2005 SCC 58, refd to. [para. 491, footnote 85].

Hanke v. Resurfice Corp. et al., [2007] 1 S.C.R. 333; 357 N.R. 175; 404 A.R. 333; 394 W.A.C. 333; 2007 SCC 7, refd to. [para. 492, footnote 86].

Clements v. Clements, [2012] 2 S.C.R. 181; 431 N.R. 198; 331 B.C.A.C. 1; 565 W.A.C. 1; 346 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 2012 SCC 32, refd to. [para. 492, footnote 86].

Hadley v. Baxendale (1854), 156 E.R. 145 (Ex. Ct.), refd to. [para. 560, footnote 92].

Noble v. Principal Consultants Ltd. (Bankrupt) (2000), 261 A.R. 82; 225 W.A.C. 82; 187 D.L.R.(4th) 80; 2000 ABCA 133, refd to. [para. 560, footnote 92].

Brown & Root Ltd. v. Chimo Shipping Ltd., [1967] S.C.R. 642; 63 D.L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 562, footnote 94].

B.P.I. Resources v. Merrill Lynch Canada Inc. and Anderson (1989), 95 A.R. 211; 1989 ABCA 106, refd to. [para. 565, footnote 95].

Mason (V.K.) Construction Ltd. v. Bank of Nova Scotia and Courtot Investments Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 271; 58 N.R. 195; 8 O.A.C. 381; 16 D.L.R.(4th) 598, refd to. [para. 567, footnote 97].

Houweling Nurseries Ltd. v. Fisons Western Corp. (1988), 37 B.C.L.R.(2d) 2; 49 D.L.R.(4th) 205 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied [1988] S.C.C.A. No. 200, refd to. [para. 568, footnote 98].

Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd. v. Newman Industries Ltd., [1949] 2 K.B. 528 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 569, footnote 99].

R. v. Mohan, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9; 166 N.R. 245; 71 O.A.C. 241; 114 D.L.R.(4th) 419, refd to. [para. 613, footnote 101].

Snell v. Farrell, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 311; 110 N.R. 200; 107 N.B.R.(2d) 94; 267 A.P.R. 94; 72 D.L.R.(4th) 289, refd to. [para. 613, footnote 102].

Viscount Dunedin in Admiralty Commissioners v. S.S. Susquehanna, [1926] A.C. 655, refd to. [para. 646, footnote 103].

West & Son Ltd. v. Shephard, [1964] A.C. 325, refd to. [para. 646, footnote 103].

Andrews et al. v. Grand & Toy (Alberta) Ltd. et al., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 229; 19 N.R. 50; 8 A.R. 182; 577; 83 D.L.R.(3d) 452, refd to. [para. 646, footnote 103].

Fisher v. Knibbe (1992), 125 A.R. 219; 14 W.A.C. 219; 1992 ABCA 121, refd to. [para. 647, footnote 104].

Keirstead v. Piggott (1999), 177 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 538 A.P.R. 1; 25 R.P.R.(3d) 20 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 665, footnote 105].

Caldwell and Caldwell v. FitzGerald, Kelleher and Morrison, [1977] 1 A.C.W.S. 696; 26 N.S.R.(2d) 140; 40 A.P.R. 140 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 666, footnote 107].

Boudreau v. Benaiah et al. (2000), 129 O.A.C. 40; 46 O.R.(3d) 737; 182 D.L.R.(4th) 569; (C.A.), refd to. [para. 666, footnote 108].

Cinar Corp. et al. v. Robinson et al., [2013] 3 S.C.R. 1168; 452 N.R. 123; 2013 SCC 73, refd to. [para. 667, footnote 109].

Park v. British Columbia (Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General), 2012 BCPC 138, refd to. [para. 668, footnote 110].

V.A.S. v. Grace et al., [2014] A.R. Uned. 698; 2014 ABQB 666, refd to. [para. 668, footnote 111].

Elgert v. Home Hardware Stores Ltd. et al. (2011), 510 A.R. 1; 527 W.A.C. 1; 2011 ABCA 112, leave to appeal denied (2011), 430 N.R. 389 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 668, footnote 112].

Gouin v. White et al. (2013), 564 A.R. 60; 2013 ABQB 332, refd to. [para. 668, footnote 113].

495793 Ontario Ltd. (c.o.b. Central Auto Parts) v. Barclay, 2014 ONSC 3517, refd to. [para. 669, footnote 114].

Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co. et al., [2002] 1 S.C.R. 595; 283 N.R. 1; 156 O.A.C. 201; 2002 SCC 18, refd to. [para. 686, footnote 115].

Indutech Canada Ltd. v. Gibbs Pipe Distributors Ltd. et al. (2013), 544 A.R. 205; 567 W.A.C. 205; 362 D.L.R.(4th) 303; 2013 ABCA 111, refd to. [para. 687, footnote 116].

Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto and Manning, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130; 184 N.R. 1; 84 O.A.C. 1; 126 D.L.R.(4th) 129, refd to. [para. 689, footnote 117].

Patenaude v. Roy (1994), 123 D.L.R.(4th) 78 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 699, footnote 120].

Recovery Production Equipment Ltd. v. McKinney Machine Co. (1998), 223 A.R. 24; 183 W.A.C. 24; 1998 ABCA 239, refd to. [para. 699, footnote 121].

Gerula v. Flores (1995), 83 O.A.C. 128; 126 D.L.R.(4th) 506 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 699, footnote 122].

Walker v. D'Arcy Moving & Storage Ltd. et al. (1999), 117 O.A.C. 367; 86 A.C.W.S.(3d) 211 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 699, footnote 122].

Williams v. Motorola Ltd., [1998] O.A.C. Uned. 321; 38 C.C.E.L.(2d) 76 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 699, footnote 123].

Canadian National Railway Co. v. McKercher LLP - see Wallace v. Canadian Pacific Railway et al.

Wallace v. Canadian Pacific Railway et al. (2013), 446 N.R. 1; 423 Sask.R. 1; 588 W.A.C. 1; 2013 SCC 39, refd to. [para. 700, footnote 125].

Cunningham v. Lilles et al. (2010), 399 N.R. 326; 283 B.C.A.C. 280; 480 W.A.C. 280; 2010 SCC 10, refd to. [para. 700, footnote 125].

Kelly v. Low et al. (2000), 257 A.R. 279; 94 A.C.W.S.(3d) 1106 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 701, footnote 126].

Christian Brothers of Ireland in Canada, Re (2000), 132 O.A.C. 271; 47 O.R.(3d) 674; 184 D.L.R.(4th) 445 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (2000), 265 N.R. 200 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 710, footnote 127].

Sun-Rype Products Ltd. et al. v. Archer Daniels Midland Co. et al. (2013), 450 N.R. 287; 2013 SCC 58, refd to. [para. 710, footnote 128].

Gallant v. Farries (2012), 522 A.R. 13; 544 W.A.C. 13; 348 D.L.R.(4th) 134; 2012 ABCA 98, refd to. [para. 714, footnote 129].

Counsel:

The Maltons were self-represented;

Vaughn Cox and Dimitrios Chronopoulos (Chatwin LLP), for the defendants.

This action was heard between April 8 and May 6, 2013, before Moen, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on February 26, 2015.