Shreem Holdings Inc. v. Barr Picard, 2014 ABQB 112

• Judge: Wakeling, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: March 13, 2013
• Citations: 2014 ABQB 112;(2014), 585 A.R. 356 (QB)

Shreem Holdings Inc. v. Barr Picard (2014), 585 A.R. 356 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] A.R. TBEd. MR.013

Shreem Holdings Inc. (respondent/applicant) v. Barr Picard (applicant/respondent)

(1103 12979; 2014 ABQB 112)

Indexed As: Shreem Holdings Inc. v. Barr Picard

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Wakeling, J.

February 26, 2014.

Summary:

Either Shreem Holdings Inc. or Kumar retained Barr Picard to commence a commercial action. Barr Picard rendered accounts totalling $113,472.60 to Shreem. Shreem asked for a review under rule 10.13(1) of the Rules of Court. At the review, Kumar asserted that Barr Picard had promised to handle the case for $15,000. The officer issued a certificate that allowed charges and expenses totalling $65,429.50. The certificate stated, "Certification of Balance Outstanding: The writer has made no ruling as to monies paid or moneys owing... . Liability: One or more of the alleged clients deny being liable, in whole or in part for payment of these bills/ accounts ." Barr Picard applied under rule 10.20(1) for an order directing that the certificate be entered as a judgment against Shreem and Kumar.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at (2013), 560 A.R. 272, dismissed the application. Barr Picard applied under rule 7.1 (severance of an issue) for an order directing a hearing of three issues: whether Barr Picard had agreed to provide specified legal services for a fixed fee, whether Kumar and Shreem were jointly and severably liable for the payment of Barr Picard's fees and whether Barr Picard was entitled to 12% interest on the outstanding fees.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 3241

Compensation - Taxation or assessment of accounts - General - Either Shreem Holdings Inc. or Kumar retained Barr Picard to commence a commercial action - Barr Picard rendered accounts totalling $113,472.60 to Shreem - Shreem asked for a review under rule 10.13(1) - The officer issued a certificate that allowed charges and expenses totalling $65,429.50 - Barr Picard's application for an order directing that the certificate be entered as a judgment against Shreem and Kumar was dismissed on the basis that the existence of unresolved issues made it impossible to enforce the certificate - Barr Picard applied under rule 7.1 (severance of an issue) for an order directing a hearing of three issues - In dismissing the application, the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench reviewed the historical development of the taxation process - See paragraphs 7 to 25.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 3242

Compensation - Taxation or assessment of accounts - Procedure (incl. discovery) - [See second Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 3243 ].

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 3243

Compensation - Taxation or assessment of accounts - Jurisdiction - Either Shreem Holdings Inc. or Kumar retained Barr Picard to commence a commercial action - Barr Picard rendered accounts totalling $113,472.60 to Shreem - Shreem asked for a review under rule 10.13(1) - The officer issued a certificate that allowed charges and expenses totalling $65,429.50 - Barr Picard's application for an order directing that the certificate be entered as a judgment against Shreem and Kumar was dismissed on the basis that the existence of unresolved issues made it impossible to enforce the certificate - Barr Picard applied under rule 7.1 (severance of an issue) for an order directing a hearing of three issues - In dismissing the application, the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench discussed how a superior court's inherent jurisdiction could be abridged by statute - This was significant because the court, having determined that rule 7.1 did not apply here, also found that the court lacked jurisdiction to make the order sought - See paragraphs 26 to 42.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 3243

Compensation - Taxation or assessment of accounts - Jurisdiction - Either Shreem Holdings Inc. or Kumar retained Barr Picard to commence a commercial action - Barr Picard rendered accounts totalling $113,472.60 to Shreem - Shreem asked for a review under rule 10.13(1) - Kumar asserted that Barr Picard had promised to handle the case for $15,000 - The officer issued a certificate that allowed charges and expenses totalling $65,429.50 - However, the certificate stated specifically that there was no ruling as to monies paid or owing and that one or more of the alleged clients denied liability - Barr Picard's application for an order directing that the certificate be entered as a judgment against Shreem and Kumar was dismissed on the basis that the existence of unresolved issues made it impossible to enforce the certificate - Barr Picard applied under rule 7.1 (severance of an issue) for an order directing a hearing of three issues - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application - The court had no jurisdiction to grant the requested relief - Shreem's request to have Barr Picard's accounts reviewed was not a foundation for the questions that Barr Picard wanted to have answered, specifically the questions of whether there was a lawyer-client relationship between Barr Picard and Kumar and the interest rate payable on Barr Picard's fees - See paragraph 60.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 3243

Compensation - Taxation or assessment of accounts - Jurisdiction - Either Shreem Holdings Inc. or Kumar retained Barr Picard to commence a commercial action - Barr Picard rendered accounts totalling $113,472.60 to Shreem - Shreem asked for a review under rule 10.13(1) - Kumar asserted that Barr Picard had promised to handle the case for $15,000 - The officer issued a certificate that allowed charges and expenses totalling $65,429.50 - Barr Picard's application for an order directing that the certificate be entered as a judgment against Shreem and Kumar was dismissed on the basis that the existence of unresolved issues made it impossible to enforce the certificate - Barr Picard applied under rule 7.1 (severance of an issue) for an order directing a hearing of three issues - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application - The court had no jurisdiction to grant the requested relief - No rule allowed the court to make the direction - Rule 10.18(1)(a) gave the reviewing officer original jurisdiction to make the reference - Rule 7.1 did not apply here because Shreem's request under rule 10.13(1) did not involve a protocol of which a trial was part nor was it a statement of claim or an originating application, all of which were preconditions to the application of rule 7.1 - See paragraphs 61 to 64.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 3243

Compensation - Taxation or assessment of accounts - Jurisdiction - Either Shreem Holdings Inc. or Kumar retained Barr Picard to commence a commercial action - Barr Picard rendered accounts totalling $113,472.60 to Shreem - Shreem asked for a review under rule 10.13(1) - Kumar asserted that Barr Picard had promised to handle the case for $15,000 - The officer issued a certificate that allowed charges and expenses totalling $65,429.50 - Barr Picard's application for an order directing that the certificate be entered as a judgment against Shreem and Kumar was dismissed on the basis that the existence of unresolved issues made it impossible to enforce the certificate - Barr Picard applied under rule 7.1 (severance of an issue) for an order directing a hearing of three issues - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application - The court had no inherent jurisdiction to order a hearing to determine whether Barr Picard had promised to provide legal services for a fixed fee - Part 10, Division 1 of the Alberta Rules of Court constituted a comprehensive code for the review of a lawyer's charges outside of the confines of an action for unpaid charges - Rule 10.18(1) granted the review officer the power to refer a question about a lawyer's charges to the court for a decision or direction - Even if this comprehensive code did not exist, the court would have declined to order the relief requested - Exercising the court's inherent jurisdiction in that manner would not have complemented the statutory protocol - This conclusion did not deprive Barr Picard of a forum - Law firms always had the option of suing clients for unpaid charges - See paragraphs 65 to 74.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 3361

Compensation - Interest on accounts - General - [See second Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 3243 ].

Courts - Topic 2001.1

Jurisdiction - General principles - Remedies - General - Either Shreem Holdings Inc. or Kumar retained Barr Picard to commence a commercial action - Barr Picard rendered accounts totalling $113,472.60 to Shreem - Shreem asked for a review under rule 10.13(1) - The officer issued a certificate that allowed charges and expenses totalling $65,429.50 - Barr Picard's application for an order directing that the certificate be entered as a judgment against Shreem and Kumar was dismissed on the basis that the existence of unresolved issues made it impossible to enforce the certificate - Barr Picard applied under rule 7.1 (severance of an issue) for an order directing a hearing of three issues - In dismissing the application, the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench discussed the principle that an initiating document defined the parameters of the court's jurisdiction - "The principle that there must be a commencement document which serves as the foundation for any relief sought is not discarded in disputes between a law firm and a client or clients. One must identify the commencement document and consider whether the remedy is one that falls within the framework supported by the foundational commencement document" - This was significant because in this case the commencing document was a request for a review under rule 10.13(1) - The reviewing officer then had the responsibility for determining when a reference to the court on a specific question was necessary - See paragraphs 43 to 56.

Courts - Topic 2004

Jurisdiction - General principles - Inherent jurisdiction (incl. parens patriae jurisdiction and jurisdiction to stay an action) - [See first and fourth Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 3243 ].

Courts - Topic 2282

Jurisdiction - Bars - Statutory bars - [See first and fourth Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 3243 ].

Courts - Topic 5681

Provincial courts - General - Jurisdiction or powers - General - [See first Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 3243 ].

Courts - Topic 8345

Provincial courts - Alberta - Court of Queen's Bench - Jurisdiction - [See all Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 3243 ].

Practice - Topic 5204

Trials - General - Severance of issues or parties - General - [See third Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 3243 ].

Cases Noticed:

Arrowsmith, Ex parte (1806), 33 Eng. Rep. 241 (Ch.), refd to. [para. 9].

Earl of Uxbridge, Ex parte (1801), 31 Eng. Rep. 1126 (Ch.), refd to. [para. 9].

Storer & Co. v. Johnson and Weatherall (1890), 15 A.C. 203 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 9].

E., Re, [1922] 2 W.W.R. 1324 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Peel Terminal Warehouses, Re (1978), 10 C.P.C. 160 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Peterson, Ross v. Kirwood (1984), 52 A.R. 284 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 9].

Alberta (Treasury Branches) v. 1401057 Alberta Ltd. (2013), 579 A.R. 152; 2013 ABQB 748, refd to. [para. 11, footnote 2].

Griffiths v. Hughes (1847), 153 Eng. Rep. 1418 (Ex.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Caron (G.), [2011] 1 S.C.R. 78; 411 N.R. 89; 499 A.R. 309; 514 W.A.C. 309; 2011 SCC 5, refd to. [para. 28, footnote 13].

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. 28, footnote 13].

MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Simpson et al., [1995] 4 S.C.R. 725; 191 N.R. 260; 68 B.C.A.C. 161; 112 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 28, footnote 13].

British Columbia Government Employees' Union v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 214; 87 N.R. 241; 71 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 93; 220 A.P.R. 93, refd to. [para. 28, footnote 13].

Connelly v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1964] A.C. 1254 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 28, footnote 13].

Bremer Vulkan Schiffbau Und Maschinenfabrik v. South India Shipping Corp., [1981] A.C. 909 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 28, footnote 13].

Central Halifax Community Association v. Halifax (Regional Municipality) et al. (2007), 253 N.S.R.(2d) 203; 807 A.P.R. 203; 280 D.L.R.(4th) 506; 2007 NSCA 39, refd to. [para. 28, footnote 14].

Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie-Britannique et al. v. British Columbia et al., [2013] 2 S.C.R. 774; 447 N.R. 204; 341 B.C.A.C. 1; 582 W.A.C. 1; 2013 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 29].

College Housing Co-Operative Ltd. et al. v. Baxter Student Housing Ltd. et al., [1976] 2 S.C.R. 475; 5 N.R. 515, refd to. [para. 29].

Stelco Inc. et al., Re (2005), 196 O.A.C. 142 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

Richtree Inc. et al., Re, [2005] O.T.C. 63; 74 O.R.(3d) 174 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 29].

Industrie Chimiche Italie Centrale v. Alexandre G. Tsaviliris & Sons Maritime Co., [1966] 1 W.L.R. 774 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 29].

Middleton v. Middleton, [1994] 3 All E.R. 236 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

Langley v. North West Water Authority, [1991] 1 W.L.R. 697 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

Moore v. Assignment Courier, [1977] 1 W.L.R. 638, refd to. [para. 29].

Etri Fans Ltd. v. M.B. (U.K.) Ltd., [1987] 1 W.L.R. 1110 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

Kinnaird, Lord v. Field, [1905] 2 Ch. 306 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

Willis v. Earl Beauchamp (1886), 11 P.D. 59, refd to. [para. 41].

S. v. McC., [1972] A.C. 24 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 42].

Davey v. Bentinck, [1893] 1 Q.B. 185 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 42].

Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan Mining Ltd. v. Todd et al., [1987] 2 W.W.R. 481; 53 Sask.R. 165 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

Siskina, The, [1979] A.C. 210 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 43].

Field and Field v. Hys and Ostolosky (1989), 101 A.R. 31 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 49].

Beresh (Brian A.) Professional Corp. et al. v. Schneider and Schneider (1990), 106 A.R. 251 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 51].

Rusnak and Savaryn v. A.C.H.A.I.A. Holdings Ltd. et al. (1983), 51 A.R. 196 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 56].

Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Canadian Liberty Net et al., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 626; 224 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 73].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court (Alta.), 2010, rule 7.1, rule 10.13(1), rule 10.18(1) [para. 6].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Abrams, Linda S., and McGuinness, Kevin P., Canadian Civil Procedure Law (2nd Ed. 2010), generally [para. 28, footnote 13].

Cardozo, Benjamin N., The Nature of the Judicial Process (1921), p. 141 [para. 43].

Côté, Jean E., Introduction of English Law into Alberta (1964), 3 Alta. L. Rev. 262, p. 265 [para. 21].

Dockray, M.S., The Inherent Jurisdiction to Regulate Civil Proceedings (1997), 113 L.Q. Rev. 120, pp. 120 [paras. 26, 27]; 127 [para. 29].

Jacob, I.H., The Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court (1970), 23 Current Legal Problems 23, generally [para. 26]; p. 51 [para. 28, footnote 14].

Lacey, Wendy, Inherent Jurisdiction, Judicial Power and Implied Guarantees Under Chapter III of the Constitution (2003), 31 Fed. L. Rev. 57, pp. 63 [para. 26]; 64 [para. 28, footnote 14].

Mason, Keith, The Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court (1983), 57 Austl. L.J. 449, generally [para. 26]; p. 457 [para. 29].

Poley, Arthur P., A Treatise Upon the Law Affecting Solicitors of the Supreme Court (1897), p. 411 [para. 73].

Counsel:

Benjamin G. Taylor (Barr Picard), for the applicant.

This application was heard on March 13, 2013, by Wakeling, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following memorandum of decision on February 26, 2014.