Patel v Patel, 2021 ABQB 5

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Patel v Patel, 2021 ABQB 5 Date: 20210105 Docket: 1403 07486, 1703 18485 Registry: Edmonton Between: Bharatkumar Patel and Rameshkumar Patel Plaintiffs - and - Kanubhai Manilal Patel and Kanubhai Haribhai Patel and Drayton Valley Subway Ltd. Defendants _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision as to Costs of the Honourable Mr. Justice B.R. Burrows _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] I issued a Memorandum of Decision dealing with an application by the Defendants in this matter on October 14, 2020: Patel v.

Patel , 2020 ABQB 613 . I invited counsel to file written submissions as to costs if they could not agree to a costs disposition. They have both filed submissions and I have read them. [ 2 ] In the application the Defendants sought the removal of Mr. Imran Qureshi as counsel for the Plaintiffs because of a threat they both swear he made to them in Hindi, which their counsel does not understand, at the conclusion of a meeting of the parties held to explore settlement possibilities. They complained to the Law Society. Their complaint was dismissed.

I dismissed their application because too much time had passed since the alleged threat, and many litigation “steps” had taken place since the threat in which Mr. Qureshi participated, before this application was brought. [ 3 ] Mr. Qureshi did not file any affidavit on the application. That he made the alleged threat was not denied in the materials before me on the application. [ 4 ] The Plaintiffs submit that they should be awarded full indemnity costs for this application, or alternatively enhanced costs,

on the basis that one of the Defendants misrepresented the disposition made of the Defendants’ complaint to the Law Society. The affidavit said, the complaint had not been resolved. In fact, it had been dismissed. [ 5 ] The colouring of the Law Society’s disposition of the Defendants’ complaint did not mislead the Court. It was clear to me that the complaint had been dismissed.

The words used by the affiant to describe the disposition by the Law Society do not justify any form of enhanced costs. [ 6 ] Similarly, contrary to the Plaintiffs’ submissions, the appearance of those words in the affidavit do not come near to justifying an award of costs personally against counsel for the Defendants. [ 7 ] This side skirmish in this litigation has been a foolish waste of the parties’ resources.

I expect that the practical consequences of the foolish skirmish have already fallen more significantly on the Defendants than the Plaintiffs, who were represented on the application by a member of the same firm as the lawyer whose action appears to have caused the skirmish. [ 8 ] There can be no doubt that if the undenied threat was made it was inappropriate.

This application, given its timing and the fact that it followed on the dismissal of the complaint to the Law Society, was, as I have noted, foolish. [ 9 ] In these circumstances, in my view, it is appropriate that both parties bear their own costs of this application. Heard on the 25 th day of November, 2020. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 5 th day of January, 2021. B.R. Burrows J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Robert O'Neill, QC for the Plaintiffs Brian G. Doherty for the Defendants