Baker v Baker, 2014 ABQB 710

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: Baker v Baker, 2014 ABQB 710 Date: 20141120 Docket: 1403 15498 Registry: Edmonton Between: Helen Louise Baker Plaintiff - and - Alfred Ernest Baker Defendant And In the Matter of Clarence Johnson _______________________________________________________ Reasons for Judgment of W. S. Schlosser , Master in Chambers _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] These two matters have come before the court, twice each, by way of applications for Fiats. The second round was at the instance of the Registrar of Land Titles, but without the Registrar being present.

[2] In the first case, a Fiat was granted that read: Fiat: Pursuant to

section 10 of the Dower Act of Alberta, upon being satisfied that Alfred Ernest Baker, the spouse of Helen LouiseBaker, is incapable of providing his Dower Consent to the disposition of this homestead, Dower Consent by Alfred Ernest Baker is hereby dispensed with and registration of this Transfer of Land is hereby authorized by the Court this 1st day of October, 2014. The Fiat was granted. The Registrar refused to file the document on the grounds that the Fiat did not satisfy

section 10 of the Dower Act,which simply reads “Order”. The Act does not say anything about length or form. (Dower Act, RSA 2000, c. D-15, s. 10(1), (5), (6), (7)). [3] In the second case, a Fiat was granted allowing a certified copy of an Enduring Power of Attorney to be filed at Land Titles,rather than the original. The Fiat was written on the lawyer’s Notarial Certificate attached to the Power of Attorney.

The Registrarrefused to file the copy, requiring the Fiat to be on the back of the document rather than on the Notarial Certificate. [4] A Fiat is an Order of the Court: Rule 13.38 (and old Rules 338 and 393 before that) Hindmarch v Neilson (1991) (AB KB), 81 Alta. L.R. (2d) 106, per Funduk, M. It is sometimes referred to as a ‘truncated order’. But this is not asituation in which size matters.

The fact that the order is usually written in the corner or margin of a document intended to be filed alsodoes not detract from its status. [5] In both cases, the refusal to file the documents in accordance with the Fiat is a refusal to obey an Order of this Court. Refusalto obey an Order of the Court is prima facie contempt ( e.g. Rule 10.52). [6] In both instances disobedience of these Orders has meant that counsel has to re-attend in chambers. This harms a member ofthe public by causing them to incur additional legal fees.

It squanders the court’s time. [7] Like any other Order, an application can be made to set a Fiat aside: Pruett v. Kohout (1995) (AB KB),30 Alta. L.R. (3d) 31 However, simply refusing to follow it is not an option. Next time costs or a Form 47 will follow. [8] Counsel are reminded that the ‘No evidence No order’ rule applies to Fiats. Representations of counsel, though they may bereliable, are not evidence. Many of these applications are time-sensitive and made at the eleventh hour. However, urgency does notobviate the need for evidence in support. Heard on the 23rd day of October, 2014.

Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 20th day of November, 2014. W. S. Schlosser M.C.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Jeffrey Chow Chiu & Company for the Applicant Zsolt Szekely Snyder & Associates LLP for the Applicant

Registrar of Land Titles Did not appear on these Applications