Legalviews Personal

A recent Court of Appeal decision is educational on two topics.

A. Address for Service

Self-represented parties often try to make it impossible to serve documents on them. They demand proof of personal service of everything. But that is completely wrong. The Rules of Court do not require personal service of any document after the suit’s commencement. See R. 11.15. An address for service is needed on court documents filed: see R. 13.13(2)(f). The form for a statement of claim or statement of defence is prescribed in the Rules. See also Stevenson & Côté, Alberta Civil Procedure Handbook R. 11.15n.

So, no party has an absolute right to receive papers or notice. As noted, a statement of defence (or statement of claim) has to give an address for service. That has been the law for well over a century. Litigation would not work without those rules. And after service on an address for service, papers left at that address, or sent to it in certain ways, are in law service and in law are notice. A defendant cannot make the plaintiff go through the steps to prove its case, unless the defendant gives an address for service. Parties who do not receive, open or read things given to that address, are the authors of their own misfortune.

Often a suit involving a self-represented plaintiff, has a history of the other party having to serve everything personally. The self-represented litigant has not given, or does not respect, an address for service. No judge or justice should let that dance continue. The self-represented party should be told to give an address for service at once, and an order should be issued saying that is the address for service, and service there suffices.

Here the Court of Appeal hinted at all that, but actually based its decision on the other legal point.

B. Exhausting Procedural Remedies in the Court Appealed From

The Court of Appeal emphasized the importance of Rules 9.15 and 9.16. They give King’s Bench judges and justices the power to upset King’s Bench judgments or orders which were made without notice, or where the opponent did not appear by accident, mistake or insufficient notice.

The Court of Appeal held that usually lack of notice or service should be decided (first) in the Court of King’s Bench, not the Court of Appeal. Rule 9.16 says that the original King’s Bench Justice should decide the matter. Often extra evidence is needed. The original judge is much better situated to hear that evidence and decide that, than is a panel of three Justices of Appeal.

See Lavoie v. Lukiw 2025 ABCA 377 (Nov 19).

– Hon. J.E. Côté

SERVING ADDRESS FOR SERVICE