Prue v. Sussman et al.,

• Judge: Quinn
• Neutral Citation: 2001 ABQB 784
• Citation: (2001), 297 A.R. 396 (QBM),2001 ABQB 784,297 AR 396,(2001), 297 AR 396 (QBM),297 A.R. 396
• Date: 05 June 2001
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)

Prue v. Sussman (2001), 297 A.R. 396 (QBM)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] A.R. TBEd. SE.050

Derek Prue (plaintiff) v. Brian S. Sussman, Biamonte Cairo & Shortreed, Neil Fenna, Richie Mill Law Firm, Consolidated Rochingham Bailiff Services Inc., Osman Auction Inc., the Edmonton Remand Centre, Constable Trevor Forbes, Constable Joe Doe, Constable John Schmoe, the City of Edmonton and Canada West Auto Recovery Inc. (defendants)

(0103 01448; 2001 ABQB 784)

Indexed As: Prue v. Sussman et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Quinn, Master in Chambers

September 14, 2001.

Summary:

The defendants, Sussman and the law firm Biamonte Cairo & Shortreed, applied pursuant to rule 129(1)(a) to dismiss the plaintiff's action against them.

A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application.

Libel and Slander - Topic 2928

Defences - Absolute privilege - Statements made in the course of judicial or legal proceedings - The plaintiff alleged that the defendants' actions caused him to be falsely arrested, imprisoned and defamed - The action was essentially a defamation claim -All of the allegations against the defendant Sussman complained of his conduct as the lawyer acting for the defendant Osman Auction Inc. - The allegations were not against him in his personal capacity - Sussman and the defendant Biamonte Cairo & Shortreed (the law firm with which Sussman was associated) applied pursuant to rule 129(1)(a) to dismiss the plaintiff's action against them - A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application, holding that what was alleged in the statement of claim against Sussman and Biamonte Cairo & Shortreed occurred on an occasion when those defendants were absolutely privileged and the action could not succeed against them.

Practice - Topic 1460

Pleadings - Statement of claim - General - Pleading alternative claims - A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench commented on the use of "and/or" in a statement of claim - See paragraphs 25 to 26.

Practice - Topic 6254

Judgments and orders - Setting aside orders - Ex parte orders - A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that where a Master makes an ex parte order the remedy of the party not heard should be a motion before the same Master to set the order aside - See paragraph 24.

Cases Noticed:

Munster v. Lamb (1883), 11 Q.B.D. 588 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Demarco v. Ungaro (1979), 21 O.R.(2d) 673; 95 D.L.R.(3d) 385 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 18].

Romaniuk v. Alberta et al. (1988), 86 A.R. 81 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 20].

Geyer v. C.C.I. Merritt, [1979] B.C.J. No. 640 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 21].

Noel & Blanchette Construction Co. v. Medican Construction Ltd. (1982), 23 Alta. L.R.(2d) 215 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 24].

Mason v. Livingstone, [1929] 1 W.W.R. 295 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Ed.) reissue vol. 3(1), para. 516 [para. 14].

Counsel:

D. McCaughan (John Bassie Law Office), for the plaintiff;

J.P. Brumlik, Q.C. (Brumlik Lees), for the defendants Brian S. Sussman, Biamonte Cairo & Shortreed.

This application was heard on June 5, 2001, before Quinn, Master in Chambers, of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following decision on September 14, 2001.