Alberta Court of Appeal Requires Disbarred Lawyer and His Son to Provide Security for Costs
In a significant legal ruling, the Alberta Court of Appeal has ordered a disbarred lawyer and his son to each post $48,850 as security for costs related to two ongoing appeals. The decision underscores the court’s authority to protect respondents from potential legal expenses when appellants lack financial resources and their chances of success appear slim.
The case began in July 2016 when the Law Society of Alberta disbarred the lawyer following a hearing committee’s decision. Despite having the opportunity to appeal directly to the law society’s benchers under the Legal Profession Act, 2000, the disbarred lawyer chose not to pursue that avenue.
Instead, the ex-lawyer and his son took a different legal route. In August 2016, they initiated proceedings against the Law Society of Alberta in the Court of Queen’s Bench, arguing that the disbarment was void. They sought reinstatement for the lawyer, damages for alleged Charter violations, and compensation for breaches of common law rights.
Their legal challenges faced significant setbacks. The Law Society successfully applied to strike their claims under Alberta’s Rules of Court for failing to disclose a valid cause of action. By August 2019, a judge dismissed their appeal against this ruling, leaving their legal campaign in jeopardy.
Undeterred, the pair continued their fight in the Alberta Court of Appeal. However, the court’s recent decision to require security for costs highlights the challenges they now face. The $48,850 each must post reflects the court’s assessment of their financial means and the weakness of their appeals.
This ruling serves as a reminder of the potential consequences for disbarred legal professionals who pursue lengthy and costly court battles without exhausting internal appeal mechanisms first. It also illustrates the courts’ willingness to use “security for costs” to shield respondents from financial risks in cases with low prospects of success.
Alberta Court of Appeal Requires Disbarred Lawyer and His Son to Provide Security for Costs
The Alberta Court of Appeal has ruled that a disbarred lawyer and his son must each post $48,850 as security for costs related to two ongoing appeals. This decision was made because the appellants—identified as the ex-lawyer and his son—admitted they were impecunious (lacking financial means) and the court found their appeals to be weak[1].
Background of the Case
The origin of the dispute dates back to July 2016, when a hearing committee of the Law Society of Alberta ordered the lawyer’s disbarment. After the disbarment, the ex-lawyer did not use his right under the Legal Profession Act, 2000, to appeal the committee’s order directly to the law society’s benchers[1].
Legal Action Against the Law Society
In August 2016, both the ex-lawyer and his son initiated legal proceedings against the Law Society of Alberta in what was then the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta. Their argument was that the disbarment itself was void. The appellants sought:
- The ex-lawyer’s reinstatement as a member in good standing.
- Damages for alleged violations of sections 7 and 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
- Damages for breaches of common law rights[1].
Dismissal of Their Claims
The Law Society of Alberta responded by applying to have the case struck for failing to disclose a valid cause of action, as per rule 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court (Alta Reg 124/2010). In August 2019, a judge dismissed an appeal by the ex-lawyer and his son seeking to overturn the order that had struck out their action[1].
Security for Costs
Moving to the Court of Appeal, the ex-lawyer and his son continued their legal challenge. The court required each of them to provide $48,850 as security for costs for their two appeals. This security was mandated because they admitted their own lack of financial resources and because the court assessed that their appeals were weak, reducing the likelihood that any costs awarded against them could be recovered otherwise[1].
Key Points
The Alberta Court of Appeal’s decision highlights the use of “security for costs” to protect respondents from incurring significant legal expenses in cases where the appellants are unlikely to be able to pay, especially when the prospects of success are low. The case illustrates the potential consequences for disbarred lawyers who continue to challenge professional regulatory decisions in court after failing to exhaust internal appeal mechanisms[1].
This summary provides a comprehensive overview of the Alberta Court of Appeal’s decision and the events leading up to it, as reported by Canadian Lawyer[1].
Conclusion
The Alberta Court of Appeal’s decision to require the disbarred lawyer and his son to post security for costs highlights the court’s approach to managing appeals with weak prospects of success. This ruling underscores the importance of financial responsibility in legal proceedings and serves as a cautionary tale for individuals pursuing appeals without a strong legal foundation. The case also emphasizes the consequences of failing to utilize internal appeal mechanisms before escalating legal challenges. This decision by the Alberta Court of Appeal sets a precedent for how courts may handle similar cases in the future.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is “security for costs” in legal proceedings?
Security for costs is a payment required by a court to ensure that the respondent is compensated for legal expenses if the appellant is unable to pay after losing the case. It is often mandated when the appellant has limited financial means or when the appeal is deemed weak.
Why was security for costs required in this case?
The Alberta Court of Appeal required security for costs because the appellants admitted to being impecunious (lacking financial means) and the court assessed their appeals as having weak prospects of success.
How much security for costs was required?
Each appellant—the disbarred lawyer and his son—was required to post $48,850 as security for costs for their two ongoing appeals.
What happens if the appellants fail to pay the security for costs?
If the appellants fail to provide the required security for costs, their appeals may be dismissed, and they may be barred from proceeding further with their legal challenges.
What lesson can legal professionals take from this case?
This case emphasizes the importance of exhausting internal appeal mechanisms before pursuing court challenges and the potential financial consequences of pursuing weak legal arguments.
