The Appellant, a lawyer, appealed a decision under Rule 10.49, which allows the Court to order a “party, lawyer or other person” to pay a penalty if they have contravened the Rules, a practice note or a direction of the Court, without adequate excuse, in a way that has or may interfere with the administration of justice. The decision below directed the lawyer to pay a $5,000 penalty for notarizing a “pseudolaw” document. The decision was made on the Court of King’s Bench own motion, without notice to the Appellant, and without affording him an opportunity to make submissions in response.

The Court of Appeal emphasized the importance of natural justice and the audi alteram partem rule, which  requires parties be given adequate notice of the case against them and a fair opportunity to be heard before Judgment is rendered. The Court noted that a finding of improper conduct on the part of counsel is a serious matter and, as a general rule, when a Court raises a matter on its own motion, it must give the affected parties adequate warning and afford them a fair opportunity to present evidence and argue their position. For this reason, the Appeal was allowed and the Rule 10.49 penalty imposed on the Appellant lawyer was set aside.