Pitblado LLP v. Sidhu et al., (2015) 319 Man.R.(2d) 61 (CA)

• Judge: Monnin, MacInnes and Mainella, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
• Case Date: January 09, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (2015), 319 Man.R.(2d) 61 (CA);2015 MBCA 52

Pitblado LLP v. Sidhu (2015), 319 Man.R.(2d) 61 (CA);

      638 W.A.C. 61

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. JN.005

Pitblado LLP (plaintiff/respondent) v. Khushwant Sidhu, also known as Kris Sidhu, Zafir Rashid, also known as Zaf Rashid, Satpreet Thiara, also known as Sat Thiara (defendants/appellants)

(AI 14-30-08255; 2015 MBCA 52)

Indexed As: Pitblado LLP v. Sidhu et al.

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Monnin, MacInnes and Mainella, JJ.A.

May 21, 2015.

Summary:

A motion judge granted summary judgment to the plaintiff law firm, ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff $49,377.54 for outstanding fees for services rendered. The defendant appealed.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Practice - Topic 5702

Judgments and orders - Summary judgments - Jurisdiction or when available or when appropriate - A motion judge granted summary judgment to the plaintiff law firm, ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff $49,377.54 for outstanding fees for services rendered - The defendant appealed, asserting that the motion judge should have recused himself from hearing the application as he was also the case conference judge appointed under Queen's Bench Rule 20A (expedited action) - The Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The underlying rationale of the expedited actions rule was to "secure the just, most expeditious and least expensive manner to determine civil proceedings and the rule should, therefore, be liberally construed to achieve that goal" - Queen's Bench Rule 20A(22) obligated the case conference judge to explore settlement of the expedited action during a case conference - The mere fact that the case conference judge had heard settlement discussions did not disqualify that judge per se from hearing a motion for summary judgment - In the absence of evidence that the motion judge should have recused himself, the motion judge was not in error when he declined the defendants' request to recuse himself - On the strength of the expedited actions rule, he was the proper judge to hear the plaintiff's application for summary judgment - See paragraphs 9 to 16.

Practice - Topic 5702

Judgments and orders - Summary judgments - Jurisdiction or when available or when appropriate - A motion judge granted summary judgment to the plaintiff law firm, ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff $49,377.54 for outstanding fees for services rendered - The defendant appealed, asserting that the plaintiff did not make out a prima facie case, and furthermore, the fairness and reasonableness of the account submitted by the plaintiff was a genuine issue to be tried - They further took the position that the account should have been referred to taxation - The Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - There was no time limit to the taxation of a lawyer's account - However, the fact remained that at the time the plaintiff brought its motion for summary judgment, or since for that matter, the defendants had made no attempt to have the bill taxed - Stating that it could be taxed was not an answer to the prima facie case that was made out on the summary judgment application - See paragraphs 17 to 25.

Cases Noticed:

Johnson (G.D.) Ltd. v. Royal Bank of Canada (1998), 126 Man.R.(2d) 285; 167 W.A.C. 285 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Jane Doe et al. v. Manitoba (2005), 195 Man.R.(2d) 309; 351 W.A.C. 309; 2005 MBCA 109, refd to. [para. 13].

Lake Louise Limited Partnership v. Canad Corp. of Manitoba Ltd. et al. (2011), 269 Man.R.(2d) 174; 2011 MBQB 225, refd to. [para. 13].

Laurie v. Parham (2010), 255 Man.R.(2d) 129; 486 W.A.C. 129; 2010 MBCA 62, refd to. [para. 14].

Homestead Properties (Canada) Ltd. v. Sekhri et al. (2007), 214 Man.R.(2d) 148; 395 W.A.C. 148; 2007 MBCA 61, refd to. [para. 17].

Compton Agro Inc. (Bankrupt) v. Buchwald Asper Gallagher Henteleff (1998), 125 Man.R.(2d) 150 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 24].

Counsel:

S. Green, Q.C., for the appellants;

T.W. Turner, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on January 9, 2015, by Monnin, MacInnes and Mainella, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal. The following judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Monnin, J.A., on May 21, 2015.