PIIKANI NATION v MCMULLEN, 2020 ABQB 90
1.2: Purpose and intention of these rules
3.68: Court options to deal with significant deficiencies
5.33: Confidentiality and use of information
In two complex Actions jointly managed by Associate Chief Justice Rooke, a self represented Defendant (“McMullen”) brought an Application for leave (the “TPC Leave Application”) to assert a Third Party Claim against several CIBC entities and Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP (“Blakes”).
In response, Blakes brought an Application for leave to strike the TPC Leave Application (the “Strike Leave Application”) and Jensen Shawa Solomon Duguid Hawkes LLP (“JSS”) brought an Application for leave to find McMullen in contempt of Court (the “Contempt Leave Application”).
Associate Chief Justice Rooke stayed the TPC Leave Application until further Court Order, as the Application could not proceed until the substance of the Strike Leave Application and Contempt Leave Application were determined.
In considering the Contempt Leave Application, Associate Chief Justice Rooke found that leave should be granted on an Application if the Application does not conflict with the purposes of the Rules, as outlined in Rule 1.2, and discloses a reasonable likelihood of success pursuant to Rule 3.68. Associate Chief Justice Rooke found that there was some evidence of McMullen’s contempt and granted JSS leave to make the Contempt Leave Application.
In considering the Strike Leave Application, Blakes argued that McMullen had relied upon privileged documents and records that are subject to the implied undertaking rule as codified in Rule 5.33. Specifically, Blakes alleged that McMullen relied on information from another Action which McMullen was not a party to, without Court Order and without consent, contrary to Rule 5.33. Associate Chief Justice Rooke found that the argument had some merit and met the requirements for leave under Rules 1.2 and 3.68. His Lordship also granted Blakes leave to make the Strike Leave Application.View CanLII Details