Taggar v Kaur Gill, 2017 ABQB 83

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Taggar v Kaur Gill, 2017 ABQB 83 Date: 20170207 Docket: 4803 175047 Registry: Edmonton Between: Kuldip Singh Taggar and Balbir Kaur Taggar Plaintiffs/Applicants - and - Maninder Kaur Gill aka Maninder Taggar Defendant/Respondent _______________________________________________________ Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Mr. Justice B.R.

Burrows _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Kuldip Singh Taggar and Balbir Kaur Taggar seek an order disqualifying Navdeep Singh Bamrah from continuing to represent Maninder Kaur Gill in these proceedings because a law student who volunteered in Mr. Gurprit Gill’s office for two weeks in May and June 2016 and who worked on this matter is now Mr. Bamrah’s articling student. The Applicants take the position that the student was exposed to confidential and privileged information concerning this matter when she worked in Mr.

Gill’s office and there is a justified concern that that information has been or could be communicated to her Principal, Mr. Bamrah, to the prejudice of the Applicants. [ 2 ] The materials on this application include an affidavit by Mr. Gill, counsel for one of the Applicants, to which is exhibited a statement signed by the student which Mr. Bamrah provided to Mr. Gill. In the statement, the student indicates that she has advised Mr. Bamrah that she volunteered with Mr. Gill’s office and has been instructed by Mr. Bamrah not to disclose any information she obtained

when doing so to himself or any other lawyer with whom he may practise. (I understand that Mr. Bamrah had or has plans to join another practice when the statement was signed. It does not appear that he has done so.) [ 3 ] The student further states that Mr. Bamrah has informed her that files relating to matters where Mr. Gill’s office is opposing counsel will be stored in a locked cabinet to which she will not have access. Mr. Bamrah has further instructed the student not to access his laptop to obtain any information relating to matters that Mr. Gill’s firm is involved in.

She further states that she has not disclosed any information she obtained when volunteering with Mr. Gill’s office to anyone including Mr. Bamrah and she undertakes not to do so and to not access any information Mr. Bamrah has concerning matters where Mr. Gill’s firm is opposing counsel. [ 4 ] Mr. Gill requested that the student provide a statutory declaration confirming the contents of her statement. Mr. Bamrah declined to do so. The Respondent has filed no evidence on this application whatsoever. [ 5 ] Mr.

Bamrah submits that the measures reflected in the student’s statement should be accepted as sufficient to overcome the concerns raised by the Applicants. [ 6 ] I dealt with an application similar to this in F.J.N. v. J.K. , 2015 ABQB 660 . I there noted that the authorities indicate that the question in this type of situation is whether a reasonably informed person would be satisfied that no confidential information has been or will be used. [ 7 ] The evidence establishes that the student has information confidential to the Applicants relating to this litigation.

The evidence does not establish that there is no risk that confidential information has not been and will not be used to the prejudice of the Applicants. The student’s statement is not sworn evidence. [ 8 ] Given the refusal by counsel for the Respondent to file evidence establishing that none of the confidential information has been disclosed by the student and that reasonable measures to ensure it will not be disclosed are in place, I am not able to conclude that there is no risk of inappropriate disclosure or that the Applicants’ concerns are unreasonable. [ 9 ] I grant the order sought. I declare that Mr.

Braham is disqualified from continuing to represent the Respondent. I direct him to withdraw from the record. [ 10 ] I note that the style of cause in these proceedings has become somewhat corrupted and confusing. A party has been added as a Plaintiff though I cannot find any Order permitting the addition. On some of the court documents, the Plaintiffs are shown as Defendants and the Defendant is shown as Plaintiff. It appears that this is because some of the pleadings and orders are styled in the Counterclaim and some in the Claim without any indication that that is the case.

I make no direction that these corruptions and confusions be remedied. I wish only to note that they exist. Heard on the 03 rd day of February, 2017. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 6 th day of February, 2017. B.R. Burrows J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Navdeep Singh Bamrah for Maninder Kaur Gill aka Taggar Gupreet Gill, Tarenjeet Virdee, Student-at-law for Kuldip Singh Taggar

Adam Karbani for Balbir Kaur Taggar