Oommen v. Ramjohn, (2015) 593 A.R. 376

• Judge: Veldhuis, J.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: January 13, 2015
• Citations: (2015), 593 A.R. 376;2015 ABCA 34

Oommen v. Ramjohn (2015), 593 A.R. 376; 637 W.A.C. 376 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] A.R. TBEd. JA.181

Paul Oommen, a litigation representative for Frederick Allan Chapman, Deceased (applicant) v. Errol Ramjohn (respondent/respondent) and Maintenance Enforcement Program (not a party to the application/not a party to the appeal)

(1403-0205-AC; 2015 ABCA 34)

Indexed As: Oommen v. Ramjohn

Alberta Court of Appeal

Veldhuis, J.A.

January 26, 2015.

Summary:

Oommen was a co-executor named in Chapman's will, which had not received a grant of probate or administration. Prior to his death, Chapman had obtained judgment in a civil action against Ramjohn. That judgment was still outstanding. Oommen was personally attempting to enforce that judgment on behalf of the estate without the assistance of counsel. He had also appointed himself the estate's litigation representative pursuant to rule 2.14 of the Rules of Court. In the Court of Queen's Bench, Oommen applied on behalf of the estate to review a prior order dealing with the distribution of garnished funds. Michalyshyn, J., dismissed that application and further held that Oommen did not have the ability to represent the estate in the Court of Queen's Bench. Oommen appealed the whole of that decision. He brought this application seeking the right to represent the estate in the Court of Appeal.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, per Veldhuis, J.A., dismissed Oommen's application to represent the estate.

Practice - Topic 30

Actions - Conduct of - General - Solicitors - Representation of parties - [See Practice - Topic 35 ].

Practice - Topic 35

Actions - Conduct of - General - Representation by non-lawyer - Oommen was a co-executor named in Chapman's will, which had not received a grant of probate or administration - Prior to his death, Chapman had obtained judgment in a civil action against Ramjohn - That judgment was still outstanding - Oommen was personally attempting to enforce that judgment on behalf of the estate without the assistance of counsel - He had also appointed himself the estate's litigation representative pursuant to rule 2.14 of the Rules of Court - In the Court of Queen's Bench, Oommen applied on behalf of the estate to review a prior order dealing with the distribution of garnished funds - Michalyshyn, J., dismissed that application and further held that Oommen did not have the ability to represent the estate in the Court of Queen's Bench - Oommen appealed the whole of that decision - He brought an application seeking the right to represent the estate in the Court of Appeal - The Alberta Court of Appeal, per Veldhuis, J.A., dismissed the application - An estate required representation to appear in court - Oommen was not entitled to appear in court on behalf of Chapman's estate - Oommen's self-appointment as litigation representative gave him the authority to direct the litigation or retain counsel, but not to appear in court.

Cases Noticed:

Stinson Estate v. British Columbia et al. (1999), 133 B.C.A.C. 15; 217 W.A.C. 15; 1999 BCCA 761, refd to. [para. 3].

Hislop et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2007] 1 S.C.R. 429; 358 N.R. 197; 222 O.A.C. 324; 2007 SCC 10, refd to. [para. 3].

Champagne v. Sidorsky (2012), 548 A.R. 10; 2012 ABQB 522, refd to. [para. 5].

Statutes Noticed:

Legal Profession Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. L-8, sect. 106(1) [para. 4].

Rules of Court (Alta.), rule 2.22 [para. 3].

Counsel:

Paul Oommen, the applicant, in person;

Errol Ramjohn, the respondent, in person (no appearance).

This application was heard on January 13, 2015, before Veldhuis, J.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal, who delivered the following reasons for decision on January 26, 2015.