Romaniuk v. Alberta et al., (1988) 86 A.R. 81 (QB)

• Judge: Miller, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: April 06, 1988
• Citations: (1988), 86 A.R. 81 (QB)

Romaniuk v. Alta. (1988), 86 A.R. 81 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Russell Romaniuk (respondent/plaintiff) v. Her Majesty The Queen in Right of the Province of Alberta, Alberta Attorney General's Department, Alexander Hogan, Q.C. and Beverly Venables (applicants/defendants)

(No. 8603-13556)

Indexed As: Romaniuk v. Alberta et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Miller, J.

April 6, 1988.

Summary:

Romaniuk was a father involved in a divorce/custody dispute wherein an amicus curiae was involved. Subsequent to the decision in the custody dispute Romaniuk did not pursue an appeal, but commenced a negligence action against the amicus curiae, the investigator used by the amicus curiae, the Alberta Attorney General's Department and the Province of Alberta (the defendants). The defendants applied to strike out Romaniuk's statement of claim. The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application to strike on the ground that the action was res judicata and an abuse of process.

Infants - Topic 6085

Legal proceedings - Representation of infants - As amicus curiae - General - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench discussed the role, function and duty of the amicus curiae in a divorce/custody dispute - See paragraphs 20 to 85.

Infants - Topic 6085

Legal proceedings - Representation of infants - As amicus curiae - Status - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that the amicus curiae in a divorce/custody dispute is not a party to the action, nor is he a representative of the children in the usual solicitor-client relationship - See paragraph 30.

Infants - Topic 6085

Legal proceedings - Representation of infants - As amicus curiae - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that the amicus curiae in a divorce/custody dispute is expected to maintain a neutral position; even though he might be asked to express an opinion - See paragraph 31.

Infants - Topic 6085

Legal proceedings - Representation of infants - As amicus curiae - General - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench recommended that an amicus curiae, if necessary in a divorce/custody dispute, be a member of the legal profession - See paragraph 26.

Infants - Topic 6085

Legal proceedings - Representation of infants - As amicus curiae - Duty of care - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench discussed whether an amicus curiae in a divorce/custody dispute owes a duty to the public (e.g. the parents involved) - The court concluded that there is no legal duty of care between the amicus curiae and the disputants, except for duty owed to the court not to act fraudulently or maliciously - See paragraphs 64 to 77.

Practice - Topic 226

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals - Court officials - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench discussed the immunities which have been granted in the past to various persons involved with the court process, including immunity for persons appointed to perform a specific function pursuant to a court order - See paragraphs 45 to 62.

Practice - Topic 687

Parties - Intervenors - Amicus curiae - [See first Infants - Topic 6085 above].

Practice - Topic 2228

Pleadings - Striking out - Grounds - Res judicata - An amicus curiae was used in a divorce/custody dispute - The father did not appeal the custody decision but rather sued the amicus curiae, the investigator used by the amicus curiae, the Attorney General Department, and the Province of Alberta (the defendants) for negligence - The defendants applied to strike out the father's statement of claim, alleging an abuse of process (i.e. the father was attempting to relitigate the custody issue) - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench agreed that the action was res judicata and an abuse of process and on this ground struck out the statement of claim against the defendants - See paragraphs 78 to 85.

Practice - Topic 2230

Pleadings - Striking out - Grounds - Failure to disclose a cause of action - Negligence - Duty of care - An amicus curiae was used in a divorce/ custody dispute - The father subsequently sued the amicus curiae, an investigator used by the amicus curiae, the Attorney General's Department and the Province of Alberta (the defendants), alleging negligence in the manner in which the amicus curiae and the investigator handled the case - The defendants applied to strike out the action, arguing that the amicus curiae owed the father no duty of care - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench agreed that there was no legal duty of care owed by the amicus curiae to the father, except the duty not to act fraudulently or maliciously - The court held however that whether the amicus curiae had acted fraudulently or maliciously was a matter to be decided at trial and therefore refused to strike out the pleading on this ground - See paragraphs 64 to 77.

Practice - Topic 2233

Pleadings - Striking out - Grounds - Immunity - An amicus curiae was used in a custody dispute - The father subsequently sued the amicus curiae, an investigator used by the amicus curiae, the Attorney General's Depart ment and the Province of Alberta, alleging negligence in the manner in which the amicus curiae and the investigator handled the case - The defendants applied to strike out the action, alleging immunity - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench refused to strike where the immunity issue was arguable and should be resolved at trial - The court however discussed the immunity issue in considerable detail - See paragraphs 44 to 63.

Practice - Topic 2239

Pleadings - Striking out - Grounds - Abuse of process - [See Practice - Topic 2228 above].

Cases Noticed:

Cerny v. Canadian Industries Ltd., [1972] 6 W.W.R. 88 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [paras. 15, 64].

Singh v. Singh (1981), 34 A.R. 271, refd to. [para. 20].

Read v. Read (1982), 17 Alta. L.R.(2d) 273, refd to. [para. 20].

Monastersky v. Monastersky (1978), 12 A.R. 492 (S.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 28].

Burnett v. Burnett (1983), 46 A.R. 216 (Q.B.), refd to. [paras. 29, 35].

Copithorne v. Copithorne (1977), 2 A.R. 431, refd to. [paras. 31, 36].

Young v. Young, [1986] 1 W.W.R. 555; 65 A.R. 347 (Q.B.), refd to. [paras. 32, 35].

M. v. M. (1985), 70 A.R. 205; 42 Alta. L.R.(2d) 383, refd to. [para. 35].

Davis v. Davis (1979), 17 A.R. 317, refd to. [para. 35].

Rivard v. Morier and Boily (1985), 64 N.R. 46; 23 D.L.R.(4th) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 46, 47].

Unterreiner v. Wilson (1982), 142 D.L.R.(3d) 588, refd to. [para. 48].

Demarco v. Ungaro (1979), 8 C.C.L.T. 1 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 50].

Rondel v. Worsley, [1967] 3 All E.R. 993 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 50, 54].

Nelles v. Ontario, (1985), 10 O.A.C. 161; 51 O.R.(2d) 513 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [paras. 51, 59].

Levesque v. Picard (1986), 66 N.B.R.(2d) 87; 169 A.P.R. 87; 34 C.C.L.T. 276 (N.B.C.A.), refd to. [para. 51].

Birchard v. Law Society of Alberta (1985), 65 A.R. 222, refd to. [para. 60].

Business Computers International Ltd. v. Registrar of Companies and Others, [1987] 3 W.L.R. 4, refd to. [para. 64].

Nielsen v. Kamloops and Hughes and Hughes, [1984] 5 W.W.R 1; 54 N.R. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 67].

Anns v. Merton London Borough Council, [1978] A.C. 728, consd. [paras. 67, 71].

Ross v. Caunters, [1980] 1 Ch. 297, refd to. [para. 69].

Tracy v. Atkins (1980), 105 D.L.R.(3d) 632 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 69].

J.E.B. Fasteners v. Marks Bloom & Co., [1981] 3 All E.R. 289, refd to. [para. 69].

Yianni v. Evans, [1982] Q.B. 438, refd to. [para. 69].

Governors of the Peabody Donation Fund v. Sir Lindsay Parkinson, [1984] 3 W.L.R. 953, refd to. [para. 70].

German v. Major (1985), 62 A.R. 2 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 73].

Yat Tung Co. v. Dao Heng Bank, [1975] A.C. 581 (P.C.), refd to. [paras. 83, 84].

Collins, Barrow Ltd. (Trustee) v. Bank of Montreal; Re Abacus Cities Ltd. (1988), 55 Alta. L.R. 123, refd to. [para. 84].

Benedetto v. Bunyan et al., [1981] 5 W.W.R. 193; 30 A.R. 370, refd to. [para. 77].

Statutes Noticed:

Proceedings Against the Crown Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. P-18, sect. 5(6) [paras. 57-60].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bennett, Receiverships (1985), p. 16 [para. 55].

Beven, T., Negligence in Law (4th Ed. 1928), vol. 1, p. 315 [para. 54].

Burns, P., S. Palmer and D. Walker, General Trends in Professional Liability (1986) [para. 70].

Canadian Bar Association, Code of Professional Conduct, ch. 1 [para. 72].

Encyclopedia of Words and Phrases, Legal Maxims Canada, 1825-1962 (2nd Ed.), vol. 1, p. 249 [para. 22].

Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Ed.), vol. 1, p. 197 [para. 47-49]; 203 [para. 53].

Institute of Law Research and Reform (Alta.), Protection of Children's Interests in Custody Disputes (1984), generally [para. 24]; pp. 18 [para. 36]; 38 [para. 20].

Pollock, L., Representation of Children: The Alberta Experience, in Contemporary Trends in Family Law: A National Perspective (1984), by K. Thouez and B. Knoppers, generally [para. 24]; pp. 193 [para. 20]; 197 [para. 36]; 199 [para. 38].

Stone, Olive, The Child's Voice in the Court of Law (1982), p. 155 [para. 23].

Thouez and Knoppers, Contemporary Trends in Family Law: A National Perspective (1984), pp. 193 [para. 20]; 197 [para. 36]; 199 [para. 38].

Counsel:

B. Stothert-Kennedy, for the respondent;

L.H. Whittaker, for the applicants.

This case was heard before Miller, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who filed the following decision on April 6, 1988.