Dragonetti v. Dragonetti, 2013 ABQB 127

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: Dragonetti v. Dragonetti, 2013 ABQB 127 Date: 20130301 Docket: 4801 149289 Registry: Calgary Between: Jodi Marilyn Nancy Dragonetti Applicant - and - Michael Dragonetti Respondent _______________________________________________________ Endorsement of the Honourable Madam Justice J.B. Veit _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Both Mr. and Ms. Dragonetti ask for costs of an application Ms. Dragonetti brought to strike, or adjourn sine die, Mr. Dragonetti ’ s domestic special chambers application set for March 4, 2013.

In the result, that application was adjourned to a specified date in the summer of 2013 on the condition that Mr. Dragonetti ’ s obligation to pay spousal support be suspended until the hearing of the application. [ 2 ] For the reasons that follow, I have concluded that, even though Ms. Dragonetti was successful in her request for an adjournment, she should nevertheless pay Mr. Dragnotti total costs of $150.00 for the hearings on February 20 and 22, 2013.

[ 3 ] The application brought by Ms. Dragonetti ’ s lawyer on February 20, 2013 did not respect Alberta ’ s Code of Conduct for lawyers. That Code provides that, although lawyers are obliged to zealously represent their clients ’ interests, they must at the same time deal courteously with one another when those interests are not prejudiced: see

Article 6.02 (1). Ms. Dragonetti ’ s lawyer acknowledges that she knew, from January 9, 2013, that she would be unavailable for a special chambers hearing on March 4, 2013 and she knew, from shortly after January 9 that Mr. Dragonetti ’ s lawyer would not agree to an adjournment of that hearing. Therefore, Ms. Dragonetti ’ s lawyer should have given reasonable notice to the lawyer on the other side of her intention to obtain a court ruling on the issue of adjournment.

Providing short notice while the other lawyer was out of the country was not reasonable. [ 4 ] The Law Society ’ s commentary to Rule 6.02 notes, among other matters, that: A lawyer should agree to reasonable requests concerning trial dates, adjournments, the waiver of procedural formalities and similar matters that do not prejudice the rights of the client. [ 5 ] Ms. Dragonetti ’ s lawyer asserts that the short notice application was only required because the lawyer opposite did not, as she should have, agreed to the adjournment. With respect, that position is wrong in the circumstances here. Ms.

Dragonetti ’ s lawyer, properly, did not disclose to the court on this application the nature of any unsuccessful discussions or negotiations between counsel concerning the adjournment. However, because of the position taken by Mr. Dragonetti ’ s lawyer on this application, one can assume that Mr. Dragonetti ’ s lawyer has, throughout, wished to impose some conditions on the adjournment. [ 6 ] In the circumstances here, a condition to suspend spousal support until the hearing is, and was, reasonable. In August, 2011, this court made an interim order for spousal support in favour of Ms.

Dragonetti, but indicated that the issue could be revisited by either party after November, 2011. Mr. Dragonetti argues at this hearing that, from early 2012 onward, he attempted to have that issue reconsidered, and entered into negotiations with his wife and her then counsel for that purpose. Nothing having been resolved, Ms. Dragonetti ’ s current counsel brought an application in morning chambers on October 23, 2012. On that date, the presiding judge concluded that her application had to be heard in special chambers and set March 4, 2013 as the earliest date when it could be heard; Ms.

Dragonetti was ordered to pay her husband $150.00 in costs. On January 9, 2013, Mr. Dragonetti brought a counter-application to terminate spousal support and made it returnable also on March 4, 2013. Ms. Dragonetti then withdrew her application and asked Mr. Dragonetti to adjourn his application. [ 7 ] As this court found at the hearing on February 22, it was reasonable to suspend the spousal support obligation until the mid-summer 2013 hearing of Mr.

Dragonetti ’ s application, given the length of time during which the latter had made reasonable efforts to resolve that issue. [ 8 ] Collaterally, the court concludes that - in January, 2013 - Mr. Dragonetti ’ s lawyer could not merely accept an adjournment of his application without prejudicing her client ’ s interests. Mr. Dragonetti was entitled to a hearing at which the potential for conditions would be discussed. [ 9 ] Such a hearing should have been scheduled in a courteous way. [ 10 ] It is because the hearing was not scheduled in such a way that Ms. Dragonetti must pay to Mr.

Dragonetti $150.00 in costs for the hearings on February 20 and 22, 2013. Heard on the 22 nd day of February, 2013.

Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 27 th day of February, 2013. “ J.B. Veit ” J.B. Veit J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Joanne Heming, Heming & Associates for the Applicant C. Suzanne Parkinson, McConnell MacInnes for the Respondent