Cliff v. Cliff, 2012 ABQB 174

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: Cliff v. Cliff, 2012 ABQB 174 Date: 20120313 Docket: 4803 149412 Registry: Edmonton Between: Evelyn Christine Cliff Plaintiff - and - Thomas Hughes Cliff Defendant _______________________________________________________ Endorsement of the Honourable Madam Justice J.B. Veit _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Relying on Rule 4.16(2), Ms. Cliff, who is represented by a lawyer, asks for relief from the obligation to engage in dispute resolution process because Mr.

Cliff is self-represented, he has been convicted of assault against her, and he has provided her with limited disclosure. She also asks for costs. [ 2 ] Both applications are denied. [ 3 ] Ms. Cliff acknowledges that the bar for obtaining a waiver of the obligation to engage in dispute resolution process before entering proceedings for trial has been set very high, e.g. IBM Canada Ltd. v Kossovan 2011 ABQB 621 .

[ 4 ] The fact that one party has been convicted of assault of the other party to the proceedings may provide a basis for waiver of dispute resolution: see para. 30 of Kossovan . Here, however, Ms. Cliff is represented by a lawyer; she would not be physically endangered by participation in dispute resolution process. There is no evidence that participation in such process would be emotionally or mentally detrimental to her: the dispute seems to center on money. Indeed, because of the reference during the hearing to a peace bond, it is not absolutely clear that Mr. Cliff was actually convicted of assault; if he was, there is no information about the sentence imposed. In

summary, in the circumstances here, the conviction for assault is not a reason to waive dispute resolution. [ 5 ] The fact that Mr. Cliff is unrepresented in no reason to waive dispute resolution. On the contrary, the benefits of the dispute resolution process may be particularly important to self-represented litigants since such litigants may have no realistic impression of the likely outcome, and cost to them, of proceedings. [ 6 ] The fact that Mr. Cliff has not completed his disclosure is no reason to waive dispute resolution. The solution to that problem is to compel him to provide disclosure, which has been done. [ 7 ] In

summary, there is no reason to believe that dispute resolution would be futile or contra-indicated in the circumstances here. [ 8 ] As a fall back position, Ms. Cliff asks the court to set terms for any required dispute resolution process. The court declines to make any order in that respect since the notice of motion does not mention any specifics which Ms. Cliff would like to have considered. [ 9 ] Even if Mr. Cliff ’ s submission that Ms. Cliff ’ s lawyer would not meet with him on Friday last to receive the outstanding answers to undertakings from him were incorrect, Ms.

Cliff would not be entitled to costs of today ’ s appearance since she was not successful in her application for waiver of the dispute resolution process. Where success has been divided, as it was here, typically parties must each bear their own costs of the hearing and that is the order which the court imposes here. Heard on the 12 th day of March, 2012. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 12 th day of March, 2012. “ J.B. Veit ” J.B. Veit J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Tracey L. Bristow, Hansma Bristow & Finlay LLP for Ms. Cliff

Mr. Cliff, on his own behalf