Fowle, Todd & Co. v. Klassen and Stoez, (1980) 31 A.R. 494 (QB)
| Judge | Cavanagh, J. |
| Court | Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada) |
| Case Date | February 15, 1980 |
| Citations | (1980), 31 A.R. 494 (QB) |
Fowle, Todd & Co. v. Klassen (1980), 31 A.R. 494 (QB)
MLB headnote and full text
Fowle, Todd & Co. v. Klassen and Stoez
(No. 7903 07098)
Indexed As: Fowle, Todd & Co. v. Klassen and Stoez
Alberta Court of Queen's Bench
Judicial District of Edmonton
Cavanagh, J.
February 15, 1980.
Summary:
The plaintiff, a law firm, sued its own client for an account rendered. The plaintiff applied for leave to enter default judgment. The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application.
Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 3347
Compensation - Actions against clients - Default judgment - An application for default judgment by a lawyer against a client did not establish the detail of the account sued on - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application and stayed the action until the lawyer's account was taxed - See paragraphs 1 to 5.
Interest - Topic 5300
Interest as damages - Interest on payment of debt withheld - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench referred to the circumstances which must be established for recovery under s. 34(16) of the Judicature Act - See paragraph 9.
Cases Noticed:
Evergreen Irrigation Ltd. v. Belgium Farms Ltd. (1976), 3 A.R. 248, refd to. [paras. 8, 9].
Prince Albert Pulp Co. Ltd. et al. v. Foundation Company of Canada Ltd., [1976] 4 W.W.R. 568 (S.C.C.); 8 N.R. 181, refd to. [para. 9].
Gustavson International Drilling Co. Ltd. v. B.P. Explorations Canada Ltd. (1977), 3 A.R. 221, refd to. [para. 9].
Guthrie McLaren Drilling Ltd. v. Inland Development Co. Ltd. (1977), 2 A.R. 519, refd to. [para. 9].
Statutes Noticed:
Rules of Court (Alta.), rule 645 [paras. 5, 7].
Judicature Act, R.S.A. 1970, c. 193, sect. 34(16) [para. 9].
Counsel:
Fowle, Todd & Co., for the plaintiff;
No one appearing for the defendant.
This application was heard by CAVANAGH, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench.
The judgment of CAVANAGH, J., was delivered at Edmonton, Alberta on February 15, 1980.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cavilla v. Fromm, 2014 ABPC 228
...instance before judgment is entered. 9 The application of R. 626 was discussed by Cavanagh J. in Fowle, Todd & Co. v. Klassen (1980), 31 A.R. 494 at 496 (Q.B.): It is true that not every account need be taxed. However, a judge cannot dispense with taxation of an account he has never see......
-
Crowe, Duhamel, Manning v. Allford, Provincial Court Judge, (1983) 45 A.R. 364 (QB)
...satisfied that a solicitor had a "proper claim" - See paragraphs 7 to 14. Cases Noticed: Fowle, Todd & Co. v. Klassen and Stooz (1981), 31 A.R. 494, refd to. [para. Re a Solicitor (1955), 16 W.W.R.(N.S.) 463 (Man. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 15]. Statutes Noticed: Legal Professions Act, R.S.......
-
Witten LLP v. Arsenault, 2006 ABPC 29
...judgment is entered. "¶ 10 The application of Rule 626 was discussed by Cavanagh, J., in Fowle, Todd & Co. v. Klassen and Stooz (1981), 31 A.R. 494, at p. 496: 'It is true that not every account need be taxed. However, a judge cannot dispense with taxation of an account he has never see......
-
Cavilla v. Fromm, 2014 ABPC 228
...instance before judgment is entered. 9 The application of R. 626 was discussed by Cavanagh J. in Fowle, Todd & Co. v. Klassen (1980), 31 A.R. 494 at 496 (Q.B.): It is true that not every account need be taxed. However, a judge cannot dispense with taxation of an account he has never see......
-
Crowe, Duhamel, Manning v. Allford, Provincial Court Judge, (1983) 45 A.R. 364 (QB)
...satisfied that a solicitor had a "proper claim" - See paragraphs 7 to 14. Cases Noticed: Fowle, Todd & Co. v. Klassen and Stooz (1981), 31 A.R. 494, refd to. [para. Re a Solicitor (1955), 16 W.W.R.(N.S.) 463 (Man. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 15]. Statutes Noticed: Legal Professions Act, R.S.......
-
Witten LLP v. Arsenault, 2006 ABPC 29
...judgment is entered. "¶ 10 The application of Rule 626 was discussed by Cavanagh, J., in Fowle, Todd & Co. v. Klassen and Stooz (1981), 31 A.R. 494, at p. 496: 'It is true that not every account need be taxed. However, a judge cannot dispense with taxation of an account he has never see......