Help

Supreme Court Judgments

Decision Information

Decision Content

 

petrashuyk v. law society of alberta, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 385

 

John Petrashuyk          Appellant

 

v.

 

The Law Society of Alberta                                                               Respondent

 

index as: petrashuyk v. law society of alberta

 

File No.: 19230.

 

1988: November 28.

 


Present: Dickson C.J. and McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux‑Dubé and Sopinka JJ.

 

on appeal from the court of appeal for alberta

 

                   Barristers and solicitors ‑‑ Compensation fund ‑‑ Client claiming compensation after being defrauded by lawyer ‑‑ Whether Law Society has discretion to deny in toto a claim when claimant has met the statutory prerequisites ‑‑ Mandamus.

 

                   Held (Lamer and La Forest JJ. dissenting): The appeal should be allowed.

 

                   APPEAL from a judgment of the Alberta Court of Appeal (1984), 35 Alta. L.R. (2d) 259, 58 A.R. 94, 16 D.L.R. (4th) 22, [1985] 2 W.W.R. 549, 10 Admin. L.R. 117, allowing the appeal of the Law Society of Alberta from a judgment of Bracco J. (1983), 29 Alta. L.R. (2d) 251, 50 A.R. 386, 5 D.L.R. (4th) 592, [1984] 2 W.W.R. 530, 7 Admin. L.R. 37, 41 C.P.C. 279, granting an order of mandamus against the Benchers of the Law Society of Alberta. Appeal allowed, Lamer and La Forest JJ. dissenting.

 

                   Nestor Makuch, for the appellant.

 

                   Peter M. Owen, Q.C., and Dan Carroll, for the respondent.

 

                   The following is the judgment delivered orally by

 

1.                       The Chief Justice‑‑The Court is ready to deliver judgment, and judgment will be delivered by my brother Lamer J.

 

2.                       Lamer J.‑‑The majority of the Court is in substantial agreement with the reasons of Bracco J., would allow the appeal with costs and restore his order in the nature of mandamus.

 

3.                       Justice Lamer and Justice La Forest, dissenting, are in substantial agreement with the reasons of the Court of Appeal of Alberta and would dismiss this appeal without costs.

 

4.                       The appeal is accordingly allowed with costs, and Bracco J.'s order is restored, Justices Lamer and La Forest, dissenting.

 

        Appeal allowed with costs, Lamer and La Forest JJ. dissenting.

 

        Solicitors for the appellant: Wheatley Sadownik, Edmonton.

 

        Solicitors for the respondent: Field & Field, Edmonton.

 

Lexum

For 20 years now, the Lexum site has been the main public source for Supreme Court decisions.


>

Decisia

 

Efficient access to your decisions

Decisia is an online service for courts, boards and tribunals aiming to provide easy and professional access to their decisions from their own website.

Learn More