Author: Brett Code, Q.C.

BA (Hons, Queen's), MA (Universite de Rennes), LLB (McGill).
Adjunct Professor. Member of the Alberta Bar.
At TingleMerrett LLP, Brett is an independent arbitrator, mediator, and senior advisor in dispute resolution, specializing in corporate, commercial, and securities law matters. Brett was called to the bar in Alberta in 1993 and has practiced primarily in the areas of commercial and corporate litigation, including a term at the Alberta Securities Commission as Director. Brett is an Adjunct Professor in the University of Calgary's Faculty of Law, and has taught Advanced Civil Procedure, Business Associations, and Evidence. He was the winner of the Howard Tidswell Memorial Award for Teaching Excellence 2009. In 2011, Brett was elected as a Bencher of the Law Society of Alberta and, in 2012, he was honoured with an appointment as Queen’s Counsel.

By: Brett Code, Q.C.

PDF Version: R v Porter: Self-incrimination – Judicial Restraint of State Coercion

Case Commented On: R v Porter, 2015 ABCA 279

It should not have been necessary, because the applicable law on the matter has been settled since 1999, but for those police officers and prosecutors who might have forgotten, the Court of Appeal in R v Porter has once again forcefully stated that statutorily compelled statements are inadmissible in criminal trials because they violate the principle against self-incrimination and section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Insistent upon guarding against the admissibility of potentially unreliable confessions, against potential abuse of state power, and against the improper use by the Crown of otherwise properly-collected, statutorily required information, the Court confirmed the principle of fundamental justice that the state may not conscript the accused against himself or herself but must build any case to meet without compelled evidence from the suspect.

At issue was the use, if any, that could be made of information contained in compulsory accident reports made to police under section 71 of the Traffic Safety Act, RSA 2000, c T-6 (TSA) and in compulsory statements made to insurers for insurance purposes following an accident. The Court’s decisive conclusions were that:

such statements or the information contained in them are inadmissible in criminal proceedings arising out of a car accident; and
the information obtained through those statements cannot be used as part of the reasonable and probable grounds of an informant in an Information to Obtain a Search Warrant or Production Order.

Kaddoura v Hanson : The Alberta Rules of Court Regarding Disclosure Work; Delay Tactics Sourced In Old Rule Logic and Old Rule Opinion Do Not

By Brett Code, Q.C.

On May 12, 2015

In Civil Procedure

By: Brett Code, Q.C.

PDF Version: Kaddoura v Hanson: The Alberta Rules of Court Regarding Disclosure Work; Delay Tactics Sourced In Old Rule Logic and Old Rule Opinion Do Not

Case Commented On: Kaddoura v Hanson, 2015 ABCA 154

In Kaddoura v Hanson, 2015 ABCA 154, the Alberta Court of Appeal eliminated from current and future consideration several old arguments regularly advanced under the old Rules of Court by parties wanting to avoid complete record disclosure and wanting to use the available motions process and its concomitant rights of appeal to delay the discovery process. In a case concerning the record disclosure obligations of third-partied lawyers alleged by straw buyers in mortgage fraud schemes to bear concurrent or exclusive responsibility for the plaintiff bank’s losses, the Court of Appeal solidified an understanding that the “new” Rules were meant to improve efficiency and reduce cost, in particular by limiting the delay and avoidance tactics previously available and oft-used by litigants under the old Rules. The message to litigants in Alberta is that the new Rules are unambiguous, and they work. Recycled arguments previously used to limit the application of the Rules to current discovery obligations will fail.

Solicitor-Client Privilege in Westra and Wyoming – Artificial Linguistic Pigeonholes and the Inappropriate Prioritization of Truth-Seeking

By Brett Code, Q.C.

On August 13, 2009

In Civil Procedure, Evidence

Cases Considered: Westra Law Office (Re), 2009 ABQB 391

PDF version: Solicitor-Client Privilege in Westra and Wyoming – Artificial Linguistic Pigeonholes and the Inappropriate Prioritization of Truth-Seeking

* Brett Code acknowledges the able assistance of John Lawless, a student-at-law at Bennett Jones LLP.

In Westra Law Office (Re), 2009 ABQB 391 (“Westra“), the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench recently had an opportunity again to consider the scope of solicitor-client privilege. The decision was founded on several grounds, only one of which interests us here, namely that involving the scope of solicitor-client privilege.

The civil standard of proof confirmed: Always proof on a balance of probabilities but now mindful of the mysterious “inherent” probabilities or improbabilities

By Brett Code, Q.C.

On November 13, 2008

In Civil Procedure, Supreme Court of Canada

Cases Considered: F.H. v. McDougall, 2008 SCC 53

PDF Version: The civil standard of proof confirmed: Always proof on a balance of probabilities but now mindful of the mysterious “inherent” probabilities or improbabilities

* Brett Code acknowledges the able assistance of Shankar Kamath, a student-at-law at Bennett Jones LLP.

In F.H. v. McDougall, released October 2, 2008, the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that there is only one standard of proof in a civil case: proof on a balance of probabilities. A mixed series of cases over the last 50 years had caused uncertainty as to the applicable standard of proof when trying allegations of morally blameworthy conduct, for example, of fraud, of sexual assault in the civil context or of dishonesty in the context of professional conduct by lawyers (see for example Bater v. Bater, [1950] 2 All E.R. 458 at 459 (C.A., Lord Denning); H.F. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2002] B.C.J. No. 436, 2002 BCSC 325 at para 154; R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103 at 138; Continental Insurance Co. v. Dalton Cartage Co., [1982] 1 S.C.R. 164 at 169-171). What had evolved was an apparently sliding scale, sometimes requiring plaintiffs to meet a higher standard of proof, a standard often said to be commensurate with the occasion. That uncertainty is now resolved, perhaps finally.