Ibrahim v. MacInnis et al., 2017 BCPC 397 (CanLII)
Citation: Ibrahim v. MacInnis et al. Date: 20171219
2017 BCPC 397 File No: 17-58162
Registry: Vancouver
IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
SMALL CLAIMS COURT
BETWEEN:
ALI IBRAHIM
CLAIMANT
AND:
JAMES C. MACINNIS
IRWIN G. NATHANSON
STEPHEN R. SCHACHTER
NATHANSON, SCHACHTER & THOMPSON LLP
DEFENDANTS
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE
HONOURABLE JUDGE W. LEE
Appearing in person: A. Ibrahim
Counsel for the Defendants: S. Cordell
Place of Hearing: Vancouver, B.C.
Date of Hearing: December 12, 2017
Date of Judgment: December 19, 2017
Introduction
[1] The defendants apply to strike the claimant’s claim and to dismiss the claim on the basis that it asks the court to consider issues outside its jurisdiction, is without reasonable grounds and is an abuse of process.
[2] Small Claims Act s. 2 and Small Claims Rule 7(14)(i) allow this court to dismiss a claim at a settlement conference if a judge determines that the claim is (a) without reasonable grounds, (b) discloses no triable issue, or (c) is frivolous or an abuse of process.
[3] Caselaw has established that the power to dismiss a claim may also occur outside of a settlement conference. These cases include Lura v. Jazz Forest Products (2004) Ltd., 2014 BCPC 14; Cecil v. Holt Renfrew & Co. Ltd., 2001 BCPC 54; and Szczurowski v. Van Strien, 2009 BCPC 405.
The Claim
[4] The notice of claim filed March 8, 2017 states as follows:
In June 2011, I consulted with the law firm of Nathanson Schachtner & Thompson LLP with reference to bringing a Mareva injunction, extradition proceedings and bringing a claim against RBC (Royal Bank of Canada). During my five weeks of consultation I provided to them my confidential and privilege [sic] information. It was and it is my reasonable expectation that these attorneys and law firm will maintain confidentiality and will not act against me. These attorneys and the law firm have breached this confidentiality by acting against me in May 2013, July of 2016 and December of 2016 and have thereby caused direct and indirect damages to me.
[5] Mr. Ibrahim claims for “Multiple Breaches’ and seeks damages of $25,000.00.
Background
[6] James G. MacInnis, Irwin G. Nathanson and Stephen Schachter are members of the law firm Nathanson, Schachter & Thompson LLP. I note that in the claim, Mr. Ibrahim has referred to Mr. Schachter as Schachtner and to the defendant law firm as Nathanson, Schachtner & Thompson.
[7] In 2011 Mr. Ibrahim met with James G. MacInnis in relation to two matters:
1) A possible Mareva injunction application involving certain persons related to Mr. Ibrahim’s matrimonial law dispute, and
2) A breach of contract claim against the Royal Bank of Canada within the context of a foreclosure proceeding.
[8] Over a period of six weeks in June to July 2015, Mr. Ibrahim had discussions with Mr. MacInnis and provided information about his claims to Mr. MacInnis. Ultimately, Mr. MacInnis was not retained by Mr. Ibrahim.
[9] Mr. Ibrahim alleges that he provided the defendants with confidential information and that Mr. MacInnis disclosed this information to two clients that Mr. MacInnis acted for, Legacy Tax & Trust Lawyers (“Legacy”) and Alexander Holburn Beaudin & Lang (“AHBL”). Both these clients are law firms being sued by Mr. Ibrahim in separate proceedings in the B.C. Supreme Court. Mr. Ibrahim alleges that the disclosure of confidential information has caused him damages.
[10] Mr. Ibrahim admits he has no direct evidence that Mr. MacInnis disclosed any confidential information. He argues though that he should be entitled to a trial where he can question Mr. MacInnis to uncover evidence. Mr. Ibrahim also argues that he should be entitled to proceed to a settlement conference, although it seems to me this is a claim that is unlikely to be resolved through settlement discussions.
The Claim against Legacy Tax & Trust Lawyers
[11] This claim arises out of extradition proceedings being brought against Mr. Ibrahim by the Attorney General of Canada on behalf of the United States Government.
[12] The extradition hearing was heard by Mr. Justice Ehrcke on April 30, 2012 and then on May 1 to 3, 2012. Judgment was reserved to June 6, 2012 when Mr. Justice Ehrcke upheld the extradition application and ordered that Mr. Ibrahim be detained. Mr. Justice Ehrcke’s written decision can be found at U.S.A. v. Ibrahim, 2012 BCSC 916.
[13] On April 23, 2013, Mr. Ibrahim commenced a B.C. Supreme Court action against Legacy. According to the statement of facts set out in the notice of civil claim, Mr. Ibrahim alleges that he retained Nick Smith of Legacy to provide an expert opinion for use in Mr. Ibrahim’s extradition proceedings. Mr. Ibrahim says that the opinion was set out in a letter and that the opinion had to be provided in the form of an affidavit so as to be acceptable to the court. Mr. Ibrahim says that the affidavit was not provided and that the expert opinion letter itself could not be used at the hearing. Mr. Ibrahim also states that Nick Smith was co‑counsel at the extradition hearing and he felt that Mr. Smith lacked adequate experience to be counsel in the hearing.
[14] Mr. Ibrahim alleges in his notice of civil claim against Legacy that: “Due to the Defendants not providing an Expert Opinion Evidence and not having extradition experience, Plaintiff was committed for extradition in June 2012.”
[15] Mr. Ibrahim claims damages as a result of his extradition arising from breach of contract, breach of trust and for what Mr. Ibrahim refers to as “breach of fiduciary”.
[16] Legacy retained Mr. MacInnis to act on their behalf as legal counsel to defend the action.
[17] There have only been a few steps taken in these proceedings. Mr. Ibrahim said that he was in detention from 2012 to 2014 which was a reason for the delay. I note though that Mr. Ibrahim was able to file the legal action against Legacy while he was in detention.
[18] Mr. Ibrahim sought to file an amended notice of civil claim on March 8, 2017. The amended notice of civil claim was struck by Master Harper of the B.C. Supreme Court on March 23, 2017. Counsel for the defendants advises me that the amended claim was struck because Mr. Ibrahim had sought by way of his amendments to add additional parties to the claim, but Mr. Ibrahim did not obtain the court’s permission to do so.
[19] Mr. Ibrahim also filed a notice of application on December 12, 2017, to seek an order that Mr. MacInnis and the law firm Nathanson Schachter & Thompson LLP are disqualified from representing Legacy in the Supreme Court proceedings. That application is set for hearing January 11, 2018.
The Claim against Alexander Holburn Beaudin & Lang
[20] On September 26, 2016, Mr. Ibrahim commenced an action against a strata corporation, The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 1222, the strata management company, Bayside Property Services Ltd., and AHBL, which is the law firm acting for both the strata corporation and the strata management company. This claim relates to dealings involving Mr. Ibrahim’s strata property located in Coquitlam, B.C.
[21] AHBL retained Mr. MacInnis to act on their behalf in defence of the claim.
[22] On October 3, 2016, AHBL, through Mr. MacInnis, filed an application to dismiss Mr. Ibrahim’s claim as against AHBL.
[23] On December 9, 2016 Mr. Justice McEwan ordered that:
The notice of civil claim filed in his [sic] proceeding on September 26, 2016 (the “Claim”) is hereby struck out as against the defendant, Alexander Holburn Beaudin & Lang LLP (the “Lawyers”), pursuant to Rule 9‑5(1)(a).
[24] Rule 9‑5(1)(a) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules states as follows:
Rule 9‑5 — Striking Pleadings
Scandalous, frivolous or vexatious matters
1) At any stage of a proceeding, the court may order to be struck out or amended the whole or any part of a pleading, petition or other document on the ground that
(a) it discloses no reasonable claim or defence, as the case may be…
The Law Regarding an Application to Dismiss
[25] The law with respect to an application to dismiss a claim prior to trial is summarized in the decision Lura v. Jazz Forest Products (2004) Ltd., 2014 BCPC 14, where the court stated:
[11] The dismissal of a claim prior to trial is a drastic remedy, and is one that should be used only in the clearest of cases. In discussing when this remedy should be used by a settlement conference judge, Chief Justice Esson of the British Columbia Supreme Court wrote, in Artisan Floor Co. v. Lam [1993] B.C.J. No. 518; 1993 CanLII 2138 (BC SC), 76 B.C.L.R. (2d) 384:
I think it is clear that the judge presiding at a settlement conference has power to give judgment, at least where, in the words of R. 7(14)(b), he is dealing with "issues that do not require evidence". The question whether the plaintiff could possibly succeed against the respondents was such an issue.
[12] Summary determination of a claim is a remedy which should only be used where it is clear from the facts which are not in issue, or from a proper application of the law, or from a combination of the two, what the result will be. While the following is not an exhaustive list, some of the more common situations when the rule has been applied to prevent a case from proceeding to trial include:
(a) Where a claim is statute barred or precluded by a limitation period or because of a failure to give notice (Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company et. Al v. Rona Inc. and Fluidmaster Inc. 2008 BCPC 0196; Cecil v. Holt Renfrew and Weston 2001 BCPC 54 (CanLII), 2001 BCPC 0054; Eddy v. Vandermeys [1993] B.C.J. No. 3031 (BCPC); Zabolotniuk v. City of Vancouver [1999] B.C.J. No. 3067 (BCPC), Sigurdur v. Fung and Louie 2007 BCPC 239 (CanLII));
(b) Where the court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim (First City Trust v. 282674 BC Ltd. (1983) 1993 CanLII 1568 (BC SC), 82 BCLR (2d) 123 (BCSC); Long v. Avis [1993] BCJ No. 1999 (BC Prov. Ct.); Universal Ventures Ltd. v. Gillespie [1993] BCJ No. 2691 (BC Prov. Ct.));
(c) Claims against the principal of a company which should properly be brought against the company, not the individual (E.M. Plastics & Electrical Products Ltd. v. Abby Signs Ltd. and Lardeur 2009 BCPC 18 (CanLII), 2009 BCPC 0018);
(d) Claims that turn on the interpretation of a statute or regulation (Sidon v. Matsqui First Nation 2008 BCPC 103 (CanLII), 2008 BCPC 0103; Michell v. Emond 2007 BCPC 295 (CanLII), 2007 BCPC 0295, upheld on appeal at 2008 BCSC 111 (CanLII));
(e) Claims that turn on the interpretation of a contract (Johnson v. Lamb Properties Inc. 2008 BCPC 0193; Devon Transport Ltd. v. Shaw and Oswald 2009 BCPC 3 (CanLII), 2009 BCPC 0003; Biggs v. Biggs 2009 BCPC 64 (CanLII), 2009 BCPC 0064);
(f) Claims brought against the wrong party;
(g) Claims brought by or against an unincorporated entity (Eco-Tourism 2010 Society v. Vancouver 2010 Bid Corp. 2005 BCPC 23 (CanLII));
(h) Claims for the cost of attending small claims court (Johnson v. Lamb Properties Inc., supra);
(i) Claims against a lawyer acting on behalf of an opposing party (Pugsley v. Harrison and Cohen 2007 BCPC 370 (CanLII), 2007 BCPC 0370);
(j) Claims under the Personal Property Security Act (First City Trust v. 282674 BC Ltd., supra);
(k) Unsupported claims for professional negligence (Sigurder v. Fung and Louie, supra, Bossy v. Kelowna Dental Center Inc. and DeGrouchy unreported decision of Myers P.C.J., May 28, 2004, Kelowna file C61482);
(l) Claims for solicitor-client costs (C.I.B.C. v. Washburn [1993] BCJ No. 2706 (BC Prov. Ct.), Gord Hill Log Homes Ltd. v. Cancedar Log Homes (B.C.) Ltd. 2006 BCPC 480 (CanLII), 2006 BCPC 0480, McGillion v. Barnett and Pique Publishing Ltd.2007 BCPC 10 (CanLII), 2007 BCPC 0010);
(m) Certain claims against a strata corporation (Valana v. Law 2005 BCPC 23 (CanLII), 2005 BCPC 0023; Clappa v. Parker Management Ltd. [2003] BCJ No. 1980; 2003 BCPC 305 (CanLII), Frechette v. Crosby Property Management Ltd. [2007] BCJ No. 1162; 2007 BCPC 174 (CanLII) and Matthews v. The Owners, Strata Plan NW1874 2009 BCPC 66 (CanLII), 2009 BCPC 0066; Leruyet v. Friesen et. al 2012 BCPC 264 (CanLII));
(n) Where there has been clear abuse of process (Bank of Montreal v. Smith [1993] BCJ No. 2741 (BICPC)).
[26] In the decision Michell v. Emond, [2007] BCJ 1994, Judge Skilnick stated at paragraph 4:
The Small Claims rules permitting dismissal of a claim prior to trial serve to weed out those claims which have no virtual chance of success, without having to expend the resources of a trial. The Judge who hears the application serves as a gatekeeper whose task it is to keep out those claims which have no merit, those which are unsupported by any evidence (without weighing the existing evidence) and those whose outcome can be easily determined without a significant expenditure of court time.
[27] In the decision Poy v. Coates, 2009 BCPC 388, Judge Woods referred to the Michell decision and added at paragraph 31:
That jurisdiction to dismiss before trial is a jurisdiction that the cases show ought to be exercised sparingly and only in clear cases. That is an understandable constraint on a powerful jurisdiction to dispose of a case before there has been a full trial.
Application of the Law to the Claim against Alexander Holburn Beaudin & Lang
[28] Mr. Ibrahim’s claim against AHBL was dismissed by Mr. Justice McEwan pursuant to Supreme Court Civil Rule 9‑5(1)(a), which permits the court to do so if the pleadings disclose no reasonable claim.
[29] Rule 9‑5(2) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules states:
No evidence is admissible on an application under subrule (1) (a).
[30] Accordingly, no evidence would have been presented to Mr. Justice McEwan regarding the claim.
[31] If Mr. MacInnis did disclose confidential information, and I have not made any finding of such, then any such disclosure did not play any role in the dismissal of the claim against AHBL. As such, Mr. Ibrahim has not suffered any damages due to Mr. MacInnis acting as legal counsel for AHBL. In the application before me, no evidence was required to be called by the applicant defendants other than to provide me with a copy of Mr. Justice McEwan’s order. Mr. Ibrahim’s claim for damages based on an alleged disclosure of confidential information by the defendants to AHBL is dismissed.
Application of the Law to the Claim against Legacy Tax & Trust Lawyers
[32] The claim against Legacy has essentially sat dormant for years. There was a failed attempt to amend the claim. There is also the recent application to have Mr. MacInnis disqualified as counsel, which application is certainly as a direct result of the defendants’ present application to have Mr. Ibrahim’s claim dismissed.
[33] Unlike the claim against AHBL, this claim has not been dismissed by the Supreme Court.
[34] Furthermore, it is not for me sitting as a Provincial Court judge to determine if the Supreme Court action against Legacy is destined to fail.
[35] I am also not to weigh the evidence in an application to dismiss a claim.
[36] The defendants submitted that Mr. Ibrahim waived any solicitor-client privilege about the extradition proceedings when he started the legal action against Legacy. That may be the case for any solicitor-client privilege involving Legacy but it would not represent a waiver of the solicitor-client privilege involving Mr. MacInnis. Without hearing evidence on this point, I cannot presume that the same information was given to both Legacy and Mr. MacInnis.
[37] I can determine if there is an abuse of process because I am permitted to dismiss the claim on that basis.
[38] In the decision Glover v. Leakey, 2016 BCSC 1624, the court described an abuse of process as follows:
[53] The court has inherent power to prevent its procedure from being used in a manner that brings the administration of justice into disrepute: Toronto (City) v. C.U.P.E., Local 79, 2003 SCC 63 (CanLII) at para. 37. The doctrine of abuse of process is a broad and flexible mechanism; its purpose is to enable the court to prevent misuse of its own process: First Majestic Silver Corp. v. Davila Santos, 2012 BCCA 5 (CanLII) at para. 22.
[54] In Jensen v. Ross, 2014 BCCA 173 (CanLII), Mr. Justice Goepel referred to the following passage from Babavic v. Babowech (1993), 42 A.C.W.S. (3d) 447 (S.C.):
[17] . . . The principle of abuse of process is somewhat amorphous. The discretion afforded courts to dismiss actions on the ground of abuse of process extends to any circumstance in which the court process is used for an improper purpose. . . .
[18] The categories of abuse of process are open. Abuse of process may be found where proceedings involve a deception on the court or constitute a mere sham; where the process of the court is not being fairly or honestly used, or is employed for some ulterior or improper purpose; proceedings which are without foundation or serve no useful purpose and multiple or successive proceedings which cause or are likely to cause vexation or oppression. . . .
[55] Canadian courts have invoked the doctrine of abuse of process in circumstances where, while issue estoppel may not be made out, permitting the litigation to proceed would violate principles such as judicial economy, consistency, finality and the integrity of the administration of justice: Toronto (City)at para. 37.
[56] In First Majestic, Mr. Justice Tysoe considered whether the concept of abuse of process could extend to inconsistent factual positions rather than just an inconsistent election of rights. Tysoe J.A. concluded that the plaintiffs had not made inconsistent allegations in a previous action as the defendants argued. His reasons make reference to a number of cases supporting the proposition that inconsistent positions in prior proceedings can constitute an abuse of process. Mystar Holdings Ltd. v. 247037 Alberta Ltd., 2009 ABQB 480 (CanLII) was cited with approval.
[39] A proceeding that brings the administration of justice into disrepute as a result of a misuse of the court’s procedures is an abuse of process: The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 343 v. Haseman Canada Corp., 2006 BCSC 1457.
[40] It is clear from Mr. Ibrahim’s history that he freely starts legal proceedings against his own former lawyers or the lawyers acting for the opposing party. The facts of this particular case are unusual though, in that Mr. Ibrahim consulted with Mr. MacInnis first and then Mr. MacInnis became legal counsel for parties that were being sued by Mr. Ibrahim.
[41] This action is not an attempt to re-litigate issues because there has been no prior court action against these particular defendants. There is a valid basis to suspect that Mr. Ibrahim is using this court action to dissuade Mr. MacInnis from representing Legacy but a suspicion alone is not a basis to find that an abuse of process exists. Given the unusual circumstances of this claim, where Mr. Ibrahim consulted with Mr. MacInnis before Mr. MacInnis acted as legal counsel for a party being sued by Mr. Ibrahim, I am not satisfied that an abuse of process exists here.
[42] Counsel for the defendants referred me to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Canadian National Railway Co. v. McKercher LLP, 2013 SCC 39 (CanLII), [2013] S.C.J. No. 39 in support of the proposition that a lawyer may be disqualified from acting for one party to a dispute if there is a breach of a duty of loyalty owed to the other party in the dispute. I do not read that decision as saying there cannot be a claim for damages against the lawyer if there is a breach of a duty of loyalty. In the Canadian National Railway Co. case, the only relief being sought was a disqualification and so there was no discussion of whether damages can also be sought against a disqualified lawyer.
[43] Foreman v. Chambers et al., 2006 BCSC 1244 describes the legal tests for a claim for breach of confidence:
[56] The test for establishing an actionable breach of confidence is a three–part one. The plaintiff must show that:
(a) the information was confidential,
(b) the information was communicated in confidence
(c) the information was misused by the party to whom it was communicated.
[44] This decision was varied by the B.C. Court of Appeal on other grounds: 2007 BCCA 409. With respect to a breach of confidence, the Court of Appeal stated:
[25] The trial judge stated, correctly, that the “test” for establishing an actionable breach of confidence requires that the plaintiff show that the information received by the defendant was confidential, that it was communicated to the defendant in confidence, and that it was misused by the defendant: see Lac Minerals Ltd. v. International Corona Resources Ltd. 1989 CanLII 34 (SCC), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 574, [1989] S.C.J. No. 83, at paras. 54‑69.
[45] If a breach is proven on the balance of probabilities, Mr. Ibrahim must then show that he suffered damages.
[46] What concerns me is that Mr. Ibrahim admits he has no evidence of any wrong doing on the part of the defendants. His hope is that at trial he will be able to cross-examine Mr. MacInnis in order to obtain the evidence that supports his claim. However, if the defendants elect to call no evidence, then Mr. Ibrahim may have nothing to support his claim. In those circumstances, proceeding to trial could be a waste of judicial resources. I am mindful though that in Small Claims Court proceedings no-evidence motions are discouraged and generally should only be entertained if the defendant elects to call no evidence in the trial: see Stone v. Insurance Corporation of BC, 2008 BCPC 383; Helina v. Percival, 2015 BCSC 1858. Of course, implicit in this is that there has to be a trial first.
[47] At this time, Mr. Ibrahim is not in a position to quantify his damages, if any. To succeed in this Small Claims Court action, Mr. Ibrahim would need to prove at a minimum that there was a disclosure of confidential information by Mr. MacInnis to Legacy and that this negatively affected his claim against Legacy, causing him a financial loss. If Mr. Ibrahim cannot prove any damages then his claim will fail or at best only result in a nominal award. In order to even attempt to assess a damages claim in this proceeding, Mr. Ibrahim needs to resolve the Legacy action.
[48] Mr. Ibrahim also provided no information to show any basis for a claim against the personal defendants Irwin G. Nathanson and Stephen Schachter, neither of whom acted for Legacy.
[49] I have concluded that I will not order a dismissal of the case in relation to any alleged disclosure of confidential information to Legacy as it would be premature at this time. However, I will make orders for the further conduct of these proceedings.
[50] The claims against Irwin G. Nathanson and Stephen Schachter (which is spelled Schachtner in the style of cause) will be dismissed. There is no evidence against them and they did not act as counsel for Legacy.
[51] These proceedings will continue only as against James G. MacInnis and Nathanson, Schachter & Thompson LLP. I will make an order to amend the style of cause to correct the spelling of the name of the law firm. This order is in keeping with the mandate set out in s. 2 of the Small Claims Act to resolve proceedings in a “just, speedy, inexpensive and simple manner”.
[52] These proceedings will not be set down for a settlement conference until Mr. Ibrahim files with this court, with a copy provided to the defendants, an affidavit attaching written evidence of the terms of a resolution by way of settlement or court order of the action against Legacy, specifically BCSC Action Number S132948, along with proof of service of the affidavit on the defendants. As I have indicated, I cannot see how Mr. Ibrahim can start to have damages assessed, if any, until the Legacy claim is dealt with.
[53] If Mr. Ibrahim does not file the above-noted affidavit and proof of service prior to December 31, 2019, then the defendants may apply to this court to have the claim dismissed. The defendants are not required to have this matter left unresolved without a deadline. The Legacy claim has been outstanding for years now and must be pursued so that this Small Claims Court matter can also be dealt with. As such, I have imposed a deadline of December 31, 2019. In my view, a failure to pursue the Small Claims Court proceedings beyond that date would be an unreasonable delay and an abuse of process.
[54] I will grant permission to the defendants to make a further application to dismiss Mr. Ibrahim’s claim should there be a dismissal of the Legacy action pursuant to Rule 9‑5 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules. As with the AHBL claim, a dismissal based on Rule 9‑5 does not require the calling of evidence and so any disclosure of information by Mr. MacInnis to Legacy would not have caused any damage to Mr. Ibrahim. Once again, I reiterate that I have made no finding that Mr. MacInnis released any confidential information to Legacy.
[55] In addition, I will grant permission to the defendants to make a further application to dismiss Mr. Ibrahim’s claim if the Supreme Court dismisses on the merits Mr. Ibrahim’s application to have Mr. MacInnis disqualified as counsel for Legacy. Such a determination by the Supreme Court means that Mr. MacInnis is permitted to act as counsel for Legacy and there would then be no basis to claim damages against Mr. MacInnis or Nathanson, Schachter & Thompson LLP.
Summary
[56] My order is as follows:
1) The claim of Ali Ibrahim for damages based on an alleged disclosure of confidential information by the defendants to Alexander Holburn Beaudin & Lang is dismissed.
2) The claim of Ali Ibrahim as against Irwin G. Nathanson and Stephen R. Schachter, who is referred to as Stephen R. Schachtner in the notice of claim, is dismissed. These court proceedings will only continue as against James G. MacInnis and Nathanson, Schachter & Thompson LLP as defendants in a claim for damages arising from the alleged disclosure of confidential information to Legacy Tax & Trust Lawyers, as it relates to the B.C. Supreme Court action between Ali Ibrahim and Legacy Tax & Trust Lawyers, BCSC Action Number S‑132948.
3) The style of cause is amended to show that the defendants are James G. MacInnis and Nathanson, Schachter & Thompson LLP.
4) These proceedings will not be set down for a settlement conference until Ali Ibrahim files with this court, with a copy provided to the defendants, an affidavit attaching evidence of the terms of a resolution by way of settlement or court order of the claim against Legacy Tax & Trust Lawyers in BCSC Action Number S‑132948, along with proof of service of the affidavit on the defendants.
5) If Ali Ibrahim does not file the above-noted affidavit and proof of service prior to December 31, 2019, then the defendants may apply to this court to have this claim dismissed.
6) The defendants may file a further Application to a Judge to dismiss this claim in either of the following circumstances:
a) The B.C. Supreme Court dismisses the claim of Ali Ibrahim against Legacy Tax & Trust Lawyers in B.C. Supreme Court Action Number S-132948, pursuant to Rule 9‑5 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, or
b) The application of Ali Ibrahim to disqualify James G. MacInnis and Nathanson, Schachter & Thompson LLP as legal counsel for Legacy Tax & Trust Lawyers in BC Supreme Court Action Number S-132948 is dismissed on its merits.
_________________________
The Honourable Judge W. Lee
Provincial Court Judge of British Columbia