Pintea v. Johns

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

Citation: Pintea v. Johns, 2017 SCC 23, [2017] 1 S.C.R. 470

Appeal heard: April 18, 2017

Judgment rendered: April 18, 2017

Docket: 37109

Between:

Valentin Pintea

Appellant and

Dale Johns and

Dylan Johns

Respondents

- and -

National Self-Represented Litigants Project,

Pro Bono Ontario and

Access Pro Bono

Interveners

Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner, Gascon, Côté, Brown and Rowe JJ.

Reasons for Judgment:

(paras. 1 to 5)

Karakatsanis J. (McLachlin C.J. and Abella, Moldaver, Wagner, Gascon, Côté, Brown and Rowe JJ. concurring)

Pintea v. Johns, 2017 SCC 23, [2017] 1 S.C.R. 470

Valentin Pintea Appellant v.

Dale Johns and

Dylan Johns Respondents and

National Self-Represented Litigants Project,

Pro Bono Ontario and

Access Pro Bono Interveners

Indexed as: Pintea v. Johns

2017 SCC 23

File No.: 37109.

2017: April 18.

Present: McLachlin C.J. and Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner, Gascon, Côté, Brown and Rowe JJ.

on appeal from the court of appeal of alberta

APPEAL from a judgment of the Alberta Court of Appeal (Martin, McDonald and Veldhuis JJ.A.), 2016 ABCA 99, [2016] A.J. No. 432 (QL), 2016 CarswellAlta 772 (WL Can.), affirming a decision of the Court of Queen’s Bench (Kenny J.). Appeal allowed.

Colin Feasby, Sean Sutherland and Adam LaRoche, for the appellant.

Duncan C. Boswell and Alyssa J. Duke, for the respondents.

Ilan Ishai and Ranjan Agarwal, for the intervener the National Self-Represented Litigants Project.

Andrew Bernstein, Jeremy Opolsky and Leora Jackson, for the interveners Pro Bono Ontario and Access Pro Bono.

The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by

[1] Karakatsanis J. — The common law of civil contempt requires that the respondents prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Pintea had actual knowledge of the Orders for the case management meetings he failed to attend.

[2] The case management judge failed to consider whether Mr. Pintea had actual knowledge of two of the three Orders upon which she based her decision. The respondents concede that the requirements of Rule 10.52(3)(a)(iii) of the Alberta Rules of Court, Alta. Reg. 124/2010, were not met with respect to these two Orders.

[3] As a result, the finding of contempt cannot stand.

[4] We would add that we endorse the Statement of Principles on Self-represented Litigants and Accused Persons (2006) (online) established by the Canadian Judicial Council.

[5] The appeal is allowed, the action is restored and the costs award vacated.

Judgment accordingly.

Solicitors for the appellant: Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt, Calgary.

Solicitors for the respondents: Gowling WLG (Canada), Calgary.

Solicitors for the intervener the National Self-Represented Litigants Project: Bennett Jones, Toronto.

Solicitors for the interveners Pro Bono Ontario and Access Pro Bono: Torys, Toronto.