SOLONIUK ESTATE v HUYGHE, 2020 ABQB 616
1.1: What these rules do
1.2: Purpose and intention of these rules
2.22: Self-represented litigants
2.23: Assistance before the Court
3.13: Questioning on affidavit and questioning witnesses
5.1: Purpose of this Part (Disclosure of Information)
5.17: People who may be questioned
5.5: When affidavit of records must be served
6.7: Questioning on affidavit in support, response and reply to application
9.14: Further or other order after judgment or order entered
10.49: Penalty for contravening rules
This dispute involved the transfer of lands previously owned jointly by Rose Maxine Soloniuk (“Mrs. Soloniuk”) and her husband Metro Soloniuk (“Mr. Soloniuk”) to the Defendant, Huyghe, the common law spouse of Mr. and Mrs. Soloniuk’s daughter. Following Mr. Soloniuk’s death, the land remained in both Mr. and Mrs. Soloniuk’s names. The land was then transferred to the Defendant, who claimed to have purchased it. Conversely, Mrs. Soloniuk swore an Affidavit prior to her own death stating that she understood the land was being transferred to her. Mrs. Soloniuk’s daughters, as personal representatives, filed a Statement of Claim to have the land restored to Mrs. Soloniuk’s Estate.
Master Birkett provided Huyghe, who was self-represented, with information on the Rules following some difficulties with previous procedural Applications surrounding Questioning and document production. In doing so, The Court was careful to state that this was not legal advice, but merely information.
On March 4, 2020, Master Birkett ordered that Huyghe attend for Questioning, and that he was entitled to have one adult person with him. Subsequently, the Defendant filed what appeared to be an Application for a further Order pursuant to Rule 9.14 in connection with the March 4, 2020 Order. The Court stated that Huyghe must file the appropriate Application and Affidavit evidence and serve those documents on counsel for the Plaintiffs, with at least five days notice to pursue the Rule 9.14 Application.
Master Birkett noted that while self represented litigants are permitted by Rule 2.22, they are still expected to familiarize themselves with the Rules and Court procedures. Similarly, pursuant to Rule 1.1(2), Huyghe was expected to jointly manage the litigation with Plaintiffs’ counsel. Further, Rule 1.2 requires the parties to jointly and individually identify the real issues in dispute and facilitate the quickest means of resolving the claim at the least expense. Additionally, Rule 2.23 permitted Huyghe to request permission to have another adult present for assistance during Court processes, as was the case with the October 4, 2020 Questioning Order.
Master Birkett cited Rule 5.1 and explained that Part 5 of the Rules governs the disclosure of information, and that the Rules regarding document production and Questioning regimes are set out in Rules 5.5 and 5.17, respectively. Additionally, the Court noted that both Rules 3.13 and 6.7 permit Questioning on an Affidavit. After providing this extensive overview of the Rules for Huyghe’s benefit, Master Birkett reminded the parties that pursuant to Rule 10.49, they may be penalized for contravening the Rules.View CanLII Details