Malton v. Attia,

• Judge: Moen, J.
• Neutral Citation: 2013 ABQB 642
• Date: 06 May 2013
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)

Malton v. Attia (2013), 573 A.R. 200 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2013] A.R. TBEd. NO.011

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); 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); Dr. Mangi Tauh, Dr. Mangi Tauh Professional Corporation, Meadowlark Family Clinic, Youssef Wafaa (defendants C); Dr. Parvis Sumani, Dr. Parvis Sumani Professional Corporation, Parkland Medical Clinic also known as Parkland Medical & Parkland Medical Associates (defendants D); 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; 2013 ABQB 642)

Indexed As: Malton v. Attia et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Moen, J.

October 29, 2013.

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. 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 sued 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 a plaintiff's action in negligence against a lawyer, if the plaintiff failed to call the evidence of an expert lawyer as to standard of care.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench determined the issues.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 2501

Negligence - General principles - Standard of care - At issue was whether it was fatal to a plaintiff's action in negligence against a lawyer, if the plaintiff failed to call the evidence of an expert lawyer as to standard of care - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench reviewed case law from several jurisdictions in Canada and held that "the rule is that lawyer standard of care evidence is admissible only when necessary ... . Necessity is evaluated in light of judicial knowledge and experience; and the specifics, subject matter and complexity of each case." - See paragraphs 40 to 136.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 2501

Negligence - General principles - Standard of care - At issue was whether it was fatal to a plaintiff's action in negligence against a lawyer, if the plaintiff failed to call the evidence of an expert lawyer as to standard of care - A further issue was the role of the judge - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench concluded that "I see no basis, in policy, logic or law, for why judges of this court require expert assistance to understand aspects of a lawyer's activities that relate to the routine functions and jurisdiction of this court." - See paragraphs 137 to 175 - However, "there are without question instances where a trial judge lacks the appropriate expertise to evaluate the standard of care for a lawyer, however, those instances are a consequence of the basic principle of evidence that expert witness testimony may only be admitted where that testimony is necessary." - "[L]egal expert opinions emerge in two general ways: 1. where the jurisdiction and activity of a court and the alleged negligence involve distinct subjects, or 2. where the negligence relates to a lawyer's practice that is specialized or involves processes and subjects that are atypical of legal practice." - The requirement for expert standard of care testimony had to relate directly to the specific alleged negligence - No judge needed to be instructed in basic aspects of legal practice when ordinary lawyer's duties, for example the confidentiality of client information, were the basis of alleged misconduct - See paragraphs 176 to 190.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 2501

Negligence - General principles - Standard of care - At issue was whether it was fatal to a plaintiff's action in negligence against a lawyer, if the plaintiff failed to call the evidence of an expert lawyer as to standard of care - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that "A judge may require and should admit expert evidence of a lawyer's standard of care where the alleged negligence relates to conduct or activities: 1. that involve litigation in a different court or tribunal, particularly: a court or tribunal which has a jurisdiction that is not shared by the trial court, or a superior appellate court; or 2. that involve a specialized area of legal practice, in particular solicitor activities such as in real estate, intellectual property, or income tax practice. Admissible lawyer standard of care expert evidence must relate to the specific negligence alleged. ... As a general rule, a judge will rarely require expert standard of care evidence to evaluate the litigation practices of a lawyer operating before that same court. ... Last, judicial knowledge of and expertise on the conduct of legal practice should flow from the institution involved, rather than the background and experience of a particular judge." - See paragraphs 210 to 214.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 2501

Negligence - General principles - Standard of care - 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 - 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 sued 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 a plaintiff's action in negligence against a lawyer, if the plaintiff failed to call the evidence of an expert lawyer as to standard of care - The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was negligent in the manner he conducted the HouseMaster action, including that the defendant had breached his duty of care when: 1. he failed to advance the HouseMaster action in a timely manner; 2. he failed to pursue a claim that mould was present in the house; 3. he did not follow his clients' instructions; 4. his litigation approach led to his clients having elevated personal injury and financial loss; 5. he ineffectively marshalled evidence on the extent and kind of defects that existed in the house; 6. he was unprepared for trial; 7. he, without authority or need, negotiated costs and interest, and entered the HouseMaster action judgment roll without consultation or instruction from the plaintiffs; 8. he did not consult his clients in preparation of hearing materials; 9. he concealed the HouseMaster judgment from his clients; 10. he refused to interact with his clients and failed to inform his clients of the timeline for an appeal of the HouseMaster judgment resulting in the plaintiffs not having the opportunity to appeal the decision; 11. he lied in his communication with the Law Society of Alberta that related to a complaint by the plaintiffs on the defendant's conduct in the HouseMaster action; 12. post-hearing, he failed to convey a request by the judge for additional information from a plaintiff witness; 13. he did not properly advise his clients; 14. his representation of the plaintiffs was negligent and did not protect his clients; 15. he in error instructed his clients that the HouseMaster action defendant had no duty to consider the possible injury to a HouseMaster client in the event of an improper inspection - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that it did not require expert lawyer standard of care evidence to evaluate any of the defendant's alleged and admitted misconduct - The HouseMaster action was conducted in the Court of Queen's Bench - Presumptively, a judge of that court had expertise to evaluate the conduct of litigation in that court - The court had not received any evidence to displace that presumption - See paragraphs 215 to 221.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 2965

Negligence - Evidence and proof - Expert evidence - [See all Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 2501 ].

Courts - Topic 202

Judges - General - Role of judge - [See second and third Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 2501 ].

Evidence - Topic 7000

Opinion evidence - Expert evidence - General - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "[a]n expert witness is distinct from other witnesses in that an expert witness is permitted to give opinion evidence, while ordinary witnesses are restricted to evidence about what the witness personally knows or has seen. An expert witness is allowed to provide opinions on hypothetical scenarios provided by the parties and based on facts closely related to the case being tried. This is not the only way in which expert witnesses are unusual. Expert witnesses are intended to be neutral observers and commentators ..." - See paragraphs 23 to 26.

Evidence - Topic 7000.4

Opinion evidence - Expert evidence - General - Admissibility - General - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "[e]xpert testimony should only be admitted when that evidence is necessary. Necessity may be evaluated by whether the absence of an expert will mean the finder of fact is unlikely to reach a correct conclusion. I think another way to state that threshold is that in the absence of expert evidence, a judge or jury will have to guess as to a conclusion, rather than use their own logic and experience. In that case, the expert's special knowledge will be necessary to bridge otherwise unfamiliar gaps." - See paragraphs 23 to 38.

Torts - Topic 10

Negligence - Standard of care - General - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "[t]he scope of what forms a standard of care is in many ways a common-sense exercise. Given the context and the facts, what would a reasonable person do? Because a standard of care is necessarily linked to the scenario in which it emerges, a different standard is applied for lay persons and those with particular expertise. For example, a doctor's conduct is tested against the standard of care of an average doctor of his or her speciality." - See paragraphs 18 to 22.

Cases Noticed:

Whighton et al. v. Integrity Inspections Inc. et al. (2007), 418 A.R. 222; 2007 ABQB 175, refd to. [para. 5].

Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932] A.C. 562 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 17, footnote 1].

DesBrisay v. Canadian Government Merchant Marine Ltd., [1941] S.C.R. 230, refd to. [para. 19, footnote 3].

Caswell v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd., [1940] A.C. 152 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 19, footnote 3].

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. 21, footnote 5].

St-Jean v. Mercier, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 491; 282 N.R. 310; 2002 SCC 15, refd to. [para. 21, footnote 5].

1159465 Alberta Ltd. v. Adwood Manufacturing Ltd. et al., [2010] A.R. Uned. 145; 25 Alta. L.R.(5th) 237; 2010 ABQB 133, affd. [2011] A.R. Uned. 347; 51 Alta. L.R.(5th) 352; 2011 ABCA 259, refd to. [para. 26, footnote 6].

National Justice Compania Riviera S.A. v. Prudential Assurance Co.; Ship Ikarian Reefer, Re, [1993] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 68 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 27, footnote 7].

Jacobson v. Sveen et al. (2000), 262 A.R. 367; 2000 ABQB 215, refd to. [para. 27, footnote 7].

Hamblin v. Ben et al. (2003), 344 A.R. 282; 2003 ABQB 459, refd to. [para. 27, footnote 7].

Deloitte & Touche LLP v. Institute of Chartered Accountants (Alta.) (2008), 433 A.R. 41; 429 W.A.C. 41; 2008 ABCA 162, refd to. [para. 27, footnote 7].

Sagl v. Cosburn, Griffiths & Brandham Insurance Brokers Ltd. et al. (2009), 249 O.A.C. 234; 2009 ONCA 388, refd to. [para. 27, footnote 7].

Gallant v. Brake-Patten (2012), 321 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 77; 996 A.P.R. 77; 2012 NLCA 23, leave to appeal denied (2012), 441 N.R. 397; 334 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 362; 1037 A.P.R. 362 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 27, footnote 7].

Abbott and Haliburton Co. et al. v. WBLI Chartered Accountants (2013), 330 N.S.R.(2d) 301; 1046 A.P.R. 301; 2013 NSCA 66, refd to. [para. 27, footnote 7].

Es-Sayyid v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) (2012), 432 N.R. 261; 2012 FCA 59, leave to appeal denied (2012), 440 N.R. 398 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 27, footnote 7].

Eli Lilly Canada Inc. et al. v. Hospira Healthcare Corp. (2010), 409 N.R. 167; 2010 FCA 282, refd to. [para. 28, footnote 8].

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. 29, footnote 9].

R. v. D.D., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 275; 259 N.R. 156; 136 O.A.C. 201; 2000 SCC 43, refd to. [para. 32, footnote 11].

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. 34, footnote 12].

R. v. R.A.N. (2001), 277 A.R. 288; 242 W.A.C. 288; 2001 ABCA 68, refd to. [para. 35, footnote 13].

Freyberg v. Fletcher Challenge Oil and Gas Inc. et al. (2005), 363 A.R. 35; 343 W.A.C. 35; 252 D.L.R.(4th) 365; 2005 ABCA 46, refd to. [para. 36, footnote 14].

Zink v. Adrian (2005), 208 B.C.A.C. 191; 344 W.A.C. 191; 2005 BCCA 93, consd. [para. 44, footnote 15].

R. v. Abbey, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 24; 43 N.R. 30; 138 D.L.R.(4th) 202, refd to. [para. 46, footnote 16].

Anderson v. Chasney, [1949] 4 D.L.R. 71; 57 Man.R. 343 (C.A.), affd. [1950] 4 D.L.R. 223 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 46, footnote 18].

Dorion v. Roberge et autres, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 374; 124 N.R. 1; 39 Q.A.C. 81; 78 D.L.R.(4th) 666, refd to. [para. 46, footnote 18].

Adeshina v. Litwiniuk & Co. et al. (2010), 483 A.R. 81; 24 Alta. L.R.(5th) 67; 2010 ABQB 80, refd to. [para. 51, footnote 20].

Krawchuk v. Scherbak et al. (2011), 279 O.A.C. 109; 106 O.R.(3d) 598; 2011 ONCA 352, leave to appeal denied (2011), 430 N.R. 396; 297 O.A.C. 395 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 51, footnote 21].

Zink v. Adrian, [2004] B.C.T.C. 303; 129 A.C.W.S.(3d) 1023; 2004 BCSC 303, refd to. [para. 52, footnote 22].

Roberge v. Huberman et al. (1999), 121 B.C.A.C. 28; 198 W.A.C. 28; 172 D.L.R.(4th) 329; 1999 BCCA 196, consd. [para. 56, footnote 24].

Maughan v. University of British Columbia et al., [2008] B.C.T.C. Uned. 983; 165 A.C.W.S.(3d) 461; 2008 BCSC 14, affd. (2009), 277 B.C.A.C. 64; 469 W.A.C. 64; 2009 BCCA 447, refd to. [para. 60, footnote 26].

Stone v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, 2008 BCPC 383, refd to. [para. 60, footnote 26].

J.J. v. Board of School Trustees of School District No. 43 (Coquitlam) et al. (2011), 309 B.C.A.C. 83; 523 W.A.C. 83; 340 D.L.R.(4th) 27; 2011 BCCA 343, leave to appeal denied (2012), 432 N.R. 392; 321 BCAC 320; 547 WAC 320 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 60, footnote 26].

van Halderen et al. v. Campney & Murphy et al. (2000), 136 B.C.A.C. 253; 222 W.A.C. 253; 2000 BCCA 234, refd to. [para. 64, footnote 27].

Birkenhead Resort Ltd. et al. v. Bemister (2001), 150 B.C.A.C. 192; 245 W.A.C. 192; 2001 BCCA 178, refd to. [para. 64, footnote 27].

Burbank v. R.T.B. et al. (2007), 239 B.C.A.C. 252; 396 W.A.C. 252; 279 D.L.R.(4th) 573; 2007 BCCA 215, leave to appeal denied (2007), 383 N.R. 380; 261 B.C.A.C. 322; 440 W.A.C. 322 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 64, footnote 27].

Sports Pool Distributors Inc. v. Dangerfield et al., [2008] B.C.T.C. Uned. 981; 12 P.P.S.A.C.(3d) 160; 2008 BCSC 9, revd. in part (2009), 277 B.C.A.C. 257; 469 W.A.C. 257; 2009 BCCA 483, dist. [para. 65, footnote 28].

Leone v. Campbell (R. Craig) Law Corp., [2008] B.C.T.C. Uned. 620; 168 A.C.W.S.(3d) 649; 2008 BCSC 983, dist. [para. 65, footnote 28].

Trout v. MacEwen, 2011 BCPC 266, dist. [para. 65, footnote 28].

Oh v. Usher et al., [2009] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1887; 2009 BCSC 1887, affd. in part (2010), 292 B.C.A.C. 206; 493 W.A.C. 206; 10 B.C.L.R.(5th) 21; 2010 BCCA 429, leave to appeal denied (2011), 426 N.R. 398; 312 B.C.A.C. 320; 531 W.A.C. 320 (S.C.C.), dist. [para. 65, footnote 28].

Morris v. Jackson (1984), 34 R.P.R. 269; 27 A.C.W.S.(2d) 280 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 70, footnote 30].

Gauvreau v. Paci, [1993] O.J. No. 1429 (Gen. Div.), revd. 1996 CarswellOnt 2661 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (1997), 220 N.R. 400; 107 O.A.C. 159 (S.C.C.), dist. [para. 71, footnote 31].

Precision Remodeling Ltd. et al. v. Soskin, Soskin & Potasky LLP et al., [2008] O.T.C. Uned. D88 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 74, footnote 33].

Dinevski et al. v. Snowdon, [2010] O.T.C. Uned. 2715; 2010 ONSC 2715, refd to. [para. 74, footnote 33].

Walls v. Ross, 2001 BCPC 187, refd to. [para. 77, footnote 35].

Guindon et al. v. Dolson, [2012] O.T.C. Uned. 1968; 2012 ONSC 1968, refd to. [para. 81, footnote 36].

Guindon et al. v. Dolson, [2013] O.A.C. Uned. 28; 2013 ONCA 23, dist. [para. 82, footnote 37].

Bales Beall LLP v. Fingrut, [2012] O.T.C. Uned. 4991; 356 D.L.R.(4th) 103; 2012 ONSC 4991, refd to. [para. 85, footnote 38].

Bales Beall LLP v. Fingrut, [2013] O.A.C. Uned. 211; 2013 ONCA 266, refd to. [para. 87, footnote 39].

Paquet v. Getty (2002), 253 N.B.R.(2d) 256; 660 A.P.R. 256; 2002 NBQB 272, refd to. [para. 91, footnote 40].

Paquet v. Getty, [2003] N.B.R.(2d) Uned. 91; 124 A.C.W.S.(3d) 200; 2003 NBCA 50, refd to. [para. 91, footnote 40].

Savoie v. Mailhot (2004), 268 N.B.R.(2d) 348; 704 A.P.R. 348; 2004 NBCA 17, refd to. [para. 96, footnote 41].

Poulain v. Iannetti (2013), 326 N.S.R.(2d) 141; 1033 A.P.R. 141; 2013 NSCA 10, refd to. [para. 99, footnote 42].

Metro Credit Union v. McInnis (2011), 307 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 350; 954 A.P.R. 350; 2011 PECA 7, leave to appeal refused (2011), 429 N.R. 393; 322 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 360; 1000 A.P.R. 360 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 102, footnote 43].

Kelly v. Lundgard et al. (2001), 286 A.R. 1; 253 W.A.C. 1; 2001 ABCA 185, refd to. [para. 104, footnote 44].

363440 Alberta Ltd. et al. v. Clark et al. (2010), 507 A.R. 91; 2010 ABQB 806, refd to. [para. 118, footnote 48].

G.H. v. Alcock et al., [2012] A.R. Uned. 503; 2012 ABQB 166, varied in part [2013] A.R. Uned. 38; 2013 ABCA 24, refd to. [para. 119, footnote 49].

Taubner Estate, Re (2010), 485 A.R. 98; 2010 ABQB 60, refd to. [para. 120, footnote 50].

MacDonald v. Taubner - see Taubner Estate, Re.

MCAP Service Corp. v. Halbersma (2013), 559 A.R. 234; 2013 ABQB 185, refd to. [para. 121, footnote 51].

Petrowski v. Petrowski Estate (2009), 466 A.R. 59; 2009 ABQB 196, refd to. [para. 122, footnote 52].

Lemoine v. Griffith, [2012] A.R. Uned. 796; 73 Alta. L.R.(5th) 276; 2012 ABQB 685, refd to. [para. 123, footnote 53].

Meier v. Rose (2012), 531 A.R. 369; 2012 ABQB 82, refd to. [para. 123, footnote 54].

Gorrie v. Nielsen (1988), 92 A.R. 167; 64 Alta. L.R.(2d) 24 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 124, footnote 55].

Tiffin Holdings Ltd. v. Millican (1964), 49 D.L.R.(2d) 216; 50 W.W.R.(N.S.) 673 (Alta. S.C.), revd. (1965), 53 D.L.R.(2d) 674 (Alta. C.A.), affd. [1967] S.C.R. 183; 60 D.L.R.(2d) 469, refd to. [para. 124, footnote 56].

R. v. Wronko (H.B.), [2013] A.R. Uned. 159; 2013 ABCA 135, refd to. [para. 125, footnote 57].

Malinowski v. Schneider (2010), 494 A.R. 201; 2010 ABQB 734, affd. (2012), 524 A.R. 231; 545 W.A.C. 231; 2012 ABCA 125, leave to appeal denied (2012), 441 N.R. 400; 553 A.R. 400; 583 W.A.C. 400 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 140, footnote 61].

Forsberg et al. v. Naidoo et al. (2011), 516 A.R. 201; 2011 ABQB 252, refd to. [para. 141, footnote 62].

Challand v. Bell (1959), 18 D.L.R.(2d) 150; 27 W.W.R.(N.S.) 182 (Alta. S.C.), refd to. [para. 148, footnote 63].

Skeels Estate et al. v. Iwashkiw et al., [2006] A.R. Uned. 344; 63 Alta. L.R.(4th) 26; 2006 ABQB 335, refd to. [para. 148, footnote 64].

Zazelenchuk et al. v. Kumleben et al. (2007), 430 A.R. 294; 2007 ABQB 650, refd to. [para. 149, footnote 65].

Scharnagl v. Stimpson et al. (2009), 351 Sask.R. 1; 2009 SKQB 474, refd to. [para. 149, footnote 65].

S.M.B. v. L.M.B., [2007] A.R. Uned. 153; 160 A.C.W.S.(3d) 515; 2007 ABCA 232, refd to. [para. 156, footnote 66].

Buckley v. Buckley - see S.M.B. v. L.M.B.

Cojocaru v. British Columbia Women's Hospital and Health Center et al. (2013), 445 N.R. 138; 336 B.C.A.C. 1; 574 W.A.C. 1; 2013 SCC 30, refd to. [para. 157, footnote 67].

R. v. Burns (R.H.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 656; 165 N.R. 374; 42 B.C.A.C. 161; 67 W.A.C. 161; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 159, footnote 68].

R. v. Sheppard (C.), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869; 284 N.R. 342; 211 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 50; 633 A.P.R. 50; 162 C.C.C.(3d) 298; 2002 SCC 26, refd to. [para. 159, footnote 69].

Wallace v. Canadian Pacific Railway et al. (2013), 446 N.R. 1; 423 Sask.R. 1; 588 W.A.C. 1; 360 D.L.R.(4th) 389; 2013 SCC 39, refd to. [para. 166, footnote 70].

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

R. v. L.L. (2013), 570 A.R. 287; 2013 ABQB 531, refd to. [para. 167, footnote 71].

R. v. Leonard - see R. v. L.L.

R. v. Parrott (W.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 178; 265 N.R. 304; 198 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 260; 595 A.P.R. 260; 2001 SCC 3, refd to. [para. 170, footnote 72].

Balogun v. Pandher (2010), 474 A.R. 258; 479 W.A.C. 258; 2010 ABCA 40, refd to. [para. 174, footnote 73].

Larter et al. v. Solid Rock Free Lutheran Church of Camrose et al., [2012] A.R. Uned. 502; 2012 ABCA 292, refd to. [para. 174, footnote 73].

Paniccia Estate et al. v. Toal (2012), 521 A.R. 73; 2012 ABQB 11, affd. (2012), 539 A.R. 349; 561 W.A.C. 349; 2012 ABCA 397, refd to. [para. 174, footnote 74].

Paniccia Estate et al. v. Toal (2012), 541 A.R. 300; 2012 ABQB 367, affd. (2012), 539 A.R. 349; 561 W.A.C. 349; 2012 ABCA 397, refd to. [para. 174, footnote 74].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 174, footnote 75].

783783 Alberta Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2010), 482 A.R. 136; 490 W.A.C. 136; 322 D.L.R.(4th) 56; 2010 ABCA 226, refd to. [para. 177, footnote 76].

Hendry v. Strike, [2005] O.J. No. 6306 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 186, footnote 78].

Major v. Buchanan et al. (1975), 9 O.R.(2d) 491; 61 D.L.R.(3d) 46 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 187, footnote 79].

Lau et al. v. Ogilvie, [2010] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1589; 2010 BCSC 1589, refd to. [para. 187, footnote 79].

Henderson et al. v. Hagblom et al. (2003), 232 Sask.R. 81; 294 W.A.C. 81; 2003 SKCA 40, refd to. [para. 187, footnote 80].

Pente Investment Management Ltd. et al. v. Schneider Corp. et al. (1998), 62 O.T.C. 1; 101 A.C.W.S.(3d) 301 (Gen. Div.), affd. (1998), 113 O.A.C. 253; 42 O.R.(3d) 177 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 194, footnote 83].

Dow Chemical Canada Inc. et al. v. Nova Chemicals Corp. (2011), 514 A.R. 233; 339 D.L.R.(4th) 119; 2011 ABQB 509, refd to. [para. 198, footnote 84].

Shute v. Premier Trust Co. (1993), 50 R.F.L.(3d) 441; 35 R.P.R.(2d) 141 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 199, footnote 85].

MacDonald Estate v. Martin and Rossmere Holdings (1970) Ltd., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1235; 121 N.R. 1; 70 Man.R.(2d) 241; 77 D.L.R.(4th) 249, refd to. [para. 202, footnote 90].

Hodgkinson v. Simms et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 377; 171 N.R. 245; 49 B.C.A.C. 1; 80 W.A.C. 1; 117 D.L.R.(4th) 161, refd to. [para. 203, footnote 91].

Cunningham v. Lilles et al., [2010] 1 S.C.R. 331; 399 N.R. 326; 283 B.C.A.C. 280; 480 W.A.C. 280; 2010 SCC 10, refd to. [para. 203, footnote 92].

R. v. Cunningham - see Cunningham v. Lilles et al.

Goold v. Alberta (Office of the Children's Advocate) (2011), 502 A.R. 298; 517 W.A.C. 298; 2011 ABCA 63, refd to. [para. 204, footnote 93].

Moose Mountain Buffalo Ranch v. Greene Farms Drilling Ltd. (2010), 474 A.R. 280; 479 W.A.C. 280; 2010 ABCA 56, refd to. [para. 204, footnote 93].

Chaos Water Hauling Inc. v. Build-All Contracting Ltd., [2012] A.R. Uned. 349; 2012 ABQB 321, refd to. [para. 204, footnote 94].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Fridman, Gerald Henry Louis, The Law of Torts in Canada (3rd Ed. 2010), pp. 363 [para. 18, footnote 2]; 366, 367 [para. 20, footnote 4].

Grant and Rothstein, Lawyers' Professional Liability (2nd Ed. 1998), pp. 11.19 to 11.22 [para. 46, footnote 17]; 11.75, 11.76 [para. 130]; 11.81 to 11.83 [para. 202, footnote 89].

Halsbury's Laws of Canada (2013), pp. 389, 390 [paras. 46, 131, footnote 17].

Klar, Lewis N., Tort Law (3rd Ed. 2003), generally [para. 46, footnote 19].

Klar, Lewis N., Tort Law (5th Ed. 2012), pp. 378 to 381 [para. 201]; 400, 401 [para. 132, footnote 60].

Counsel:

The Maltons were self-represented;

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

This matter was heard on April 8 to May 6, 2013, by Moen, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following reasons for judgment on October 29, 2013.

-	Para.
I. Introduction	1
II Discussion	13
--A. Negligence, the Standard of Care and Expert Witnesses	17
---1. Negligence	17
---2. Standard of Care	18
---3. Experts	23
--B. Does a Trial Judge of a Superior Court Require Expert Evidence to Evaluate Conduct of a Lawyer?	40
---1. Positions of the Parties	40
---2. Review of Legal Authorities	48
----a. Case Law	49
-----i. British Columbia Jurisprudence	49
-----ii. Ontario Jurisprudence	67
-----iii. New Brunswick Jurisprudence	91
-----iv. Nova Scotia jurisprudence	99
-----v. Prince Edward Island jurisprudence	102
-----vi. Alberta Jurisprudence	104
-----vii. Conclusion - Case Authorities	126
----b. Other Authorities	130
----c. Conclusion - Legal Authorities	135
--C. The Judge as an 'Expert Expert' Lawyer	137
---1. Expert Experts are Qualified to Comment on Subordinate Expertise	140
---2. Peer Evaluation by Average Lawyers	145
---3. Judicial Neutrality and Competence	154
---4. Judicial Expertise	164
----a. Functions of Trial Judges	168
----b. Specialized Domains of Law and Legal Practice	176
--D. Policy Considerations	191
---1. Access to Justice	191
---2. 'Rebuttal' Expert Evidence	196
--E. Code of Conduct	198
--F. Conclusion and Legal Test	210
III. Conclusion - Is Expert Standard of Care Evidence Necessary to Evaluate Attia's Alleged Negligence?	215

Authorities Cited

Authorities Cited by the Plaintiffs :

Allen (Next Friend of) v University Hospitals Board , 2002 ABCA 195, 312 AR 59; Anderson v Chasney , [1949] 4 DLR 71, 57 ManR 343 (Man CA), affirmed [1950] 4 DLR 223 (SCC); Grant & Rothstein, Lawyers' Professional Liability , 2nd ed (Markham: Buttersworth, 1998); Halsbury's Laws of Canada , 1st ed (Markham: LexisNexis Canada, 2013); L. Klar, Tort Law , 3rd ed (Toronto: Thomson Carswell, 2003) R v Abbey , [1982] 2 SCR 24, 138 DLR (3d) 202; Roberge v Bolduc; Dorion v Roberge , [1991] 1 SCR 374, 78 DLR (4th) 666; Shute v Premier Trust Co. , (1993), 50 RFL (3d) 441, 35 RPR (2d) 141 (Ont Ct (Gen Div)).

Authorities Cited by the Defendant Lawyer :

Adeshina v Litwiniuk & Co. , 2010 ABQB 80, 483 AR 81; Anderson v Chasney , [1949] 4 DLR 71, 57 Man.R. 343 (Man CA), affirmed [1950] 4 DLR 223 (SCC); Baziuk v Dunwoody , 13 CPC (4th) 156, 72 ACWS (3d) 76 (Ont Ct J (Gen Div)); Dow Chemical Canada Inc. v Nova Chemicals Corp. , 2011 ABQB 509, at para 70, 339 DLR (4th) 119; Gauvreau v Paci , [1993] OJ No 1429 (QL) (Ont Ct Gen Div), reversed [1996] OJ No 2396 (QL), 1996 CarswellOnt 2661 (Ont CA), leave denied [1996] SCCA No 549; Guindon v Dolson , 2012 ONSC 1968; Krawchuk v Scherbak , 2011 ONCA 352, 106 O.R. (3d) 598, leave denied [2011] SCCA No 319; Leone v R. Craig Campbell Law Corp. , 2008 BCSC 983, 168 ACWS (3d) 649; Morris v Jackson , (1984), 34 RPR 269, 27 ACWS (2d) 280 (Ont HCJ); Paquet v Getty , 2002 NBQB 272, 253 NBR (2d) 256, leave abandoned 2003 NBCA 50, 124 ACWS (3d) 200; R v Abbey , [1982] 2 SCR 24, 138 DLR (3d) 202; Roberge v Huberman , 1999 BCCA 196, 172 DLR (4th) 329; Sports Pool Distributors Inc. v Dangerfield , 2008 BCSC 9, 12 PPSAC (3d) 160, reversed on other grounds 2009 BCCA 483, 277 BCAC 257; Zink v Adrian , 2005 BCCA 93, 208 BCAC 191.

Authorities Cited by the Court :

363440 Alberta Ltd. v Clark , 2010 ABQB 806, 507 AR 91; 783783 Alberta Ltd. v Canada (Attorney General) , 2010 ABCA 226, 322 DLR (4th) 56); 1159465 Alberta Ltd. v Adwood Manufacturing Ltd. , 2010 ABQB 133, 25 Alta LR (5th) 237, affirmed 2011 ABCA 259, 51 Alta LR (5th) 352; Abbott and Haliburton Company v WBLI Chartered Accountants , 2013 NSCA 66; Bales Beall LLP v Fingrut , 2012 ONSC 4991, 356 DLR (4th) 103; Bales Beall LLP v Fingrut , 2013 ONCA 266; Balogun v Pandher , 2010 ABCA 40, 474 AR 258; Birkenhead Resort Ltd. v Bemister , 2001 BCCA 178, 150 BCAC 192; British Columbia Women's Hospital and Health Centre , 2013 SCC 30; Buckley v Buckley , 2007 ABCA 232, 160 ACWS (3d) 515; Burbank v Bolton [Burbank v R.T.B. ], 2007 BCCA 215, 279 DLR (4th) 573, leave denied [2007] SCCA No. 316; Canadian National Railway Co. v. McKercher LLP; Wallace v. Canadian Pacific Railway , 2013 SCC 39, 360 DLR (4th) 389; Challard v Bell (1959), 18 DLR (2d) 150, 27 WWR 182 (Alta SC (TD)); Chaos Water Hauling Inc. v Build-All Contracting Ltd. , 2012 ABQB 321; Deloitte & Touche LLP v Institute of Chartered Accountants of Alberta , 2008 ABCA 162, 433 AR 41; DesBrisay v Canadian Government Merchant Marine Ltd. , [1941] SCR 230; Director of Public Prosecutions v Jordan , [1977] AC 699 (HL); Dinevski v Snowdon , 2010 ONSC 2715; Donoghue v Stevenson , [1932] AC 562 (HL); Dunsmuir v New Brunswick , 2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 SCR 190; Eli Lilly Canada Inc. v Hospira Healthcare Corp. , 2010 FCA 282, 409 NR 167; Es-Sayyid v Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) , 2012 FCA 59, NR 261, leave denied [2012] SCCA No 116; Forsberg v Naidoo , 2011 ABQB 252, 516 AR 201; Freyberg v Fletcher Challenge Oil and Gas Inc ., 2005 ABCA 46, 252 DLR (4th) 365; G.H.L. Fridman, The Law of Torts in Canada , 3rd ed (Toronto: Carswell, 2010); G.H. v Alcock , 2012 ABQB 166, varied 2013 ABCA 24; Gallant v Brake-Patten , 2012 NLCA 23, 321 Nfld & PEIR 77, leave denied [2012] SCCA No 257; Goold v Alberta (Child and Youth Advocate); Goold v Alberta (Office of the Children's Advocate) , 2011 ABCA 63, 502 AR 298; Gorrie v Nielsen (No. 2) , (1989), 92 AR 167, 64 Alta LR (2d) 24 (Alta CA); Guindon v Dolson , 2013 ONCA 43; Hagblom v Henderson , 2003 SKCA 40, 232 SaskR 81; Hamblin v Ben , 2003 ABQB 459, 344 AR 282; Hendry v. Strike , [2005] O.J. No. 6306 (QL) (Ont Sup Ct J); Hodgkinson v Sims , [1994] 3 SCR 377 at 425, 117 DLR (4th) 161; Jacobson v Sveen , 2000 ABQB 215, 262 AR 367; J.J. v Coquitlam School District No. 43 , 2011 BCCA 343, 340 DLR (4th) 27, leave denied [2011] SCCA No 446; Kelliher (Village) v Smith , [1931] SCR 672, [1931] 4 DLR 102; Kelly v Lundgard , 2001 ABCA 185; L. N. Klar, Tort Law , 5th ed (Toronto: Carswell, 2012); Larter v Solid Rock Free Lutheran Church of Camrose , 2012 ABCA 292; Lau v Ogilvie , 2010 BCSC 1589; Lemoine v Griffith , 2012 ABQB 685, 73 Alta LR (5th) 276; MacDonald Estate v Martin , [1990] 3 SCR 1235 at 1245-1246, 77 DLR (4th) 249; Mailhot v Savoie , 2004 NBCA 17, 268 NBR (2d) 348; Major v Buchanan et al. (1975), 9 OR (2d) 491, 61 DLR (3d) 46 (Ont HCJ); Malinowski v Schneider , 2010 ABQB 734, 494 AR 201, affirmed 2012 ABCA 125, 524 AR 231, leave denied [2012] SCCA No 279; Maughan v University of British Columbia , 2008 BCSC 14, 165 ACWS (3d) 461, affirmed 2009 BCCA 447, 277 BCAC 64; MCAP Service Corp. v Halbersma , 2013 ABQB 185; Meier v Rose , 2012 ABQB 82, 531 AR 369; Metro Credit Union Ltd. v McInnis , 2011 PECA 7, 307 Nfld & PEIR 350, leave refused [2011] SCCA No 240; Moose Mountain Buffalo Ranch v Greene Farms Drilling Ltd. , 2010 ABCA 56, 474 AR 280; National Justice Compania Naviera S.A. v Prudential Assurance Co. Ltd. ("The Ikarian Reefer") , [1993] 2 Lloyd's LR 68 (QB); Oh v Usher , 2009 BCSC 1887, 292 BCAC 206, affirmed on other grounds 2010 BCCA 429, 10 BCLR (5th) 21, leave denied [2011] SCCA No 123; Paniccia Estate v Toal , 2012 ABQB 11, 521 AR 73, affirmed 2012 ABCA 397, 539 AR 349; Paniccia Estate v Toal , 2012 ABQB 367, 539 AR 349, both affirmed 2012 ABCA 397, 539 AR 349; Paniccia Estate v Toal , 2012 ABCA 397, 539 AR 349; Pente Investment Management Ltd. v Schneider Corp. , [1998] OJ No 6387, 101 ACWS (3d) 301 (Ont Ct (Gen Div)), affirmed 42 OR (3d) 177, 113 OAC 253 (Ont CA); Petrowski v Petrowski Estate , 2009 ABQB 196, 466 AR 59; Poulain v Iannetti , 2013 NSCA 10; Precision Remodeling Ltd. v Soskin, Soskin & Potasky LLP , 2008 CanLII 31411 (Ont SC); R v Burns , [1994] 1 SCR 656, 89 CCC (3d) 193; R v Cunningham , 2010 SCC 10, [2010] 1 SCR 331; R v D.D. , 2000 SCC 43, [2000] 2 SCR 275; R v Lavallee , [1990] 1 SCR 852, 108 NR 321; R v Leonard , 2013 ABQB 531; R v Mohan , [1994] 2 SCR 9, 114 DLR (4th) 419; R v Parrott , 2001 SCC 3, [2001] 1 SCR 178; R v R.A.N. , 2001 ABCA 68, 277 AR 288; R v Sheppard , 2002 SCC 26, [2002] 1 SCR 869; R v Turner , [1975] QB 834 (UKCA); R v Wronko , 2013 ABCA 135; Resurfice Corp. v Hanke , 2007 SCC 7, [2007] 1 SCR 333; Sagl v Cosburn, Griffiths & Brandham Insurance Brokers Ltd. , 2009 ONCA 388, 249 OAC 234; Scharnagl (Litigation Guardian of) v Stimpson , 2009 SKQB 474, 351 SaskR 1; Skeels Estate v Iwashkiw , 2006 ABQB 335, 63 Alta LR (4th) 26; St Jean v Mercier , 2002 SCC 15, [2002] 1 SCR 491; Stone v Insurance Corp. of British Columbia , 2008 BCPC 383; Taubner Estate (Re); MacDonald v Taubner , 2010 ABQB 60, 485 AR 98; Ter Neuzen v Korn , [1995] 3 SCR 674, 38, 127 DLR (4th) 577; Tiffin Holdings Ltd. v Millican (1964), 49 DLR (2d) 216, 50 WWR 673, affirmed [1967] SCR 183, 60 DLR (2d) 469; Trout v MacEwen , 2011 BCPC 266; van Halderen v Campney & Murphy , 2000 BCCA 234, 136 BCAC 25; Walls v Ross , 2001 BCPC 187. Whighton v Integrity Inspections Incorporated , 2007 ABQB 175; Zazelenchuk v Kumleben , 2007 ABQB 650, 430 AR 294.