Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Mr. Salahub's malpractice claim against his former lawyers was summarily dismissed due to insufficient pleadings and lack of supporting evidence.

• Expert evidence on the standard of care was not provided despite the chambers judge's prior guidance on its importance in professional negligence claims.

• The appellant failed to tender the retainer agreement into evidence, which was fatal to his breach of contract allegations.

• Courts are not permitted to speculate about future evidence; parties resisting summary dismissal must demonstrate a genuine issue for trial based on the existing record.

• Procedural fairness was maintained as the self-represented litigant was given opportunity to make submissions after initial exchanges with the court.

• An alleged conflict of interest based on Parlee's tenancy in a Suncor-named building was unsupported by evidence and deemed irrelevant to the negligence standard.

Background and retainer relationship

In 2010, Craig Salahub retained Parlee McLaws LLP to prosecute an action in the Court of King's Bench against his former employer, Suncor Energy Oil and Gas Partnership, claiming constructive dismissal (the "KB Action"). In the years that followed, Parlee took various steps on behalf of Mr. Salahub such as filing a Statement of Claim, exchanging Affidavits of Records, questioning Suncor's corporate representative, and engaging in settlement discussions. In February 2022, Parlee ceased to represent Mr. Salahub in the KB Action. While his claim against Suncor is ongoing, Mr. Salahub is now self-represented.

The malpractice claim and summary dismissal application

On October 30, 2023, Mr. Salahub filed a Civil Claim in the Alberta Court of Justice seeking more than $105,000 in damages against Parlee, alleging malpractice, negligence, breach of duty, and financial losses resulting from an "overly long case that was mishandled by Parlee McLaws LLP." In December 2023, Parlee filed a Dispute Note denying misconduct, breach of contract, or negligence in any legal services rendered, and specifically pled that the Civil Claim did not plead sufficient, or any, facts to support the claim of negligence or of the alleged loss suffered by Mr. Salahub. A trial was set in the Alberta Court of Justice for April 28-29, 2025. On July 17, 2024, a pre-trial conference was held before the same chambers judge that heard the summary dismissal application. A procedural order included a deadline of October 31, 2024 for Mr. Salahub to provide Parlee with a copy of any expert report he intended to rely on together with the particulars of the expert's qualifications. He did not do so. On December 4, 2024, Parlee filed an application seeking summary dismissal, supported by an affidavit sworn by Charles Ang, a partner at Parlee with personal knowledge of Mr. Salahub's file and the services provided by the firm. On January 13, 2025, Mr. Salahub filed an affidavit in response.

The chambers judge's decision

On January 24, 2025, Parlee's application was heard. While Mr. Salahub's Civil Claim was framed in very general terms, the chambers judge considered the application through the dual lens of negligence and breach of contract. The chambers judge set out the tripartite test for when summary judgment is an appropriate procedure and cited the leading appellate authority in Alberta governing summary judgment applications: Weir-Jones Technical Services Incorporated v Purolator Courier Ltd, 2019 ABCA 49. In determining that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, the chambers judge held the record before her lacked sufficient evidence to support the likelihood of finding in Mr. Salahub's favour at trial, on either liability or damages as alleged in his Civil Claim. Specifically, the chambers judge held that there was no evidence of negligence or breach of contract on the part of Parlee, that Mr. Salahub had no expert evidence to support his vague allegations of wrongdoing, that there was no evidence of undue delay with respect to the KB Action as allegedly caused by Parlee (noting that Applications Judge Farrington found no undue delay caused by Parlee), and that there was no evidence before the Court of financial losses suffered by Mr. Salahub as alleged in his Civil Claim.

Grounds of appeal and standard of review

Mr. Salahub advanced three grounds of appeal: that the chambers judge overemphasized the lack of expert evidence to support his claim, that the chambers judge wrongly discounted his assertion that he could marshal the relevant evidence at trial, and that the proceedings below were procedurally unfair. While not set out in his Notice of Appeal, Mr. Salahub also argued that Parlee was in a conflict of interest based on an alleged landlord tenant relationship between Parlee and Suncor. The Court of King's Bench applied the standard from Housen v Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, reviewing questions of law on a standard of correctness and questions of fact for palpable and overriding error. The court noted that on an application for summary judgment, a chambers judge's assessment of the facts, the application of the law to those facts, and the ultimate determination as to whether summary resolution is appropriate are all entitled to deference.

Analysis of the expert evidence issue

The appeal court found Mr. Salahub's argument that the chambers judge overemphasized the lack of expert evidence revealed his misunderstanding of how he would prove his case at trial and his misunderstanding of his evidentiary responsibility when defending Parlee's summary judgment application. His responding affidavit contained five paragraphs in total. Apart from a transcript of Applications Judge Farrington's reasons for rejecting Suncor's delay application in the KB Action, the remainder of Mr. Salahub's exhibits were instances of correspondence between the parties and various billing documents, such as Parlee's invoices and Statements of Account. None of the records exhibited by Mr. Salahub could realistically support the allegations set out in his Civil Claim. Notably, Mr. Salahub did not tender into evidence a copy of the retainer agreement that Parlee was alleged to have breached. Also absent from Mr. Salahub's affidavit was any evidence speaking to the standard of care informing a lawyer's conduct when prosecuting a claim for constructive dismissal. While it is true that as a matter of law a litigant need not adduce expert evidence on the applicable standard of care in a professional negligence claim, the court noted that as a practical matter, the litigant who chooses this course accepts a real risk that the claim will fail—especially where the negligence is not obvious on the face of the facts alleged, unlike cases such as Anderson v Chasney et al, 1949 CanLII 236 (MBCA), where a surgeon performing an operation on a small child left a sponge in the child's airway causing the child to die of suffocation.

The "best foot forward" principle

The appeal court found Mr. Salahub's argument that the chambers judge wrongly discounted his assertion that he could marshal evidence at trial to be without merit. The chambers judge correctly stated the applicable law: the resisting party on a summary disposition application shall be presumed to have put its best foot forward and in so doing, must demonstrate on the record that there is a genuine issue requiring a trial; the Court is not to speculate as to what evidence might be called at trial but rather, shall decide summary disposition applications based on the record before it. In Canada (Attorney General) v Lameman, 2008 SCC 14 at para 19, the Supreme Court of Canada expressly stated that a summary judgment motion cannot be defeated by vague references to what may be admitted in the future, if the matter is allowed to proceed, and that a motion for summary judgment must be judged on the basis of the pleadings and materials actually before the judge, not on suppositions about what might be pleaded or proven in the future. As the party opposite to Parlee's summary dismissal application, Mr. Salahub had an evidentiary onus to advance a record capable of demonstrating a genuine issue requiring a trial. He did not.

Procedural fairness finding

Mr. Salahub argued that the hearing below was procedurally unfair because the chambers judge repeatedly cut him off with the effect that he was denied a reasonable opportunity to advance his argument. The appeal court did not give effect to this submission. In fairness to Mr. Salahub, the transcript does disclose several instances of the chambers judge interjecting during Mr. Salahub's attempt at opening remarks, which occurred when the Court was discussing the lack of expert evidence in a professional negligence claim. However, the chambers judge later opened the floor to Mr. Salahub to make submissions as he saw fit. The appeal court interpreted the lengthy exchange about expert evidence as one in which the chambers judge was seeking clarity from Mr. Salahub given the discussion at the July PTC, which was required for the chambers judge to discharge her heightened duty to help a self-represented litigant understand the proceeding and the main issues in the case. The appeal court found no breach of the fundamental right to be heard (audi alteram partem).

The conflict of interest allegation

While not pled in the Civil Claim nor identified as a reason for appeal in the Notice of Appeal, Mr. Salahub argued that Parlee was in a conflict of interest because of an alleged landlord tenancy agreement between Parlee and Suncor. The appeal court found this argument to be without merit. Other than a bald assertion that Parlee was in a conflict of interest with Suncor, Mr. Salahub did not provide evidence to support that claim. The alleged conflict was said to arise from Parlee's tenancy in a building that bears Suncor's name. The court held that a corporate name adorned on a building is not evidence of a contract, and at most is circumstantial evidence that Suncor may have had naming rights in relation to a particular property, quite separate and apart from whether Suncor was a landlord to any entity therein. There was no evidence before the chambers judge, or in the record on appeal, that Parlee was a tenant of Suncor. Even assuming Parlee was a tenant of Suncor, that fact does not bear on whether Parlee's conduct on Mr. Salahub's file met the standard of care required of a lawyer prosecuting a claim for constructive dismissal. The court also noted that allegations that lawyers may be in a conflict of interest are generally matters for the Law Society of Alberta, not the courts.

Ruling and outcome

The Court of King's Bench dismissed Mr. Salahub's appeal, finding the chambers judge did not err in granting Parlee's application for relief. The chambers judge correctly articulated and applied the legal test for summary judgment on the record before her. Mr. Salahub's pleadings failed to allege facts in support of allegations that were framed in exceedingly general terms, and his affidavit in response to Parlee's application failed to provide an evidentiary foundation upon which the chambers judge could have decided the application differently. The law requires the party resisting summary dismissal to put its best foot forward and demonstrate from the record that there is a genuine issue requiring a trial; Mr. Salahub failed to do so. Parlee McLaws LLP was the successful party, represented by J. Blanchard of the Alberta Lawyers Indemnity Association. Counsel for Parlee was directed to draft the Order arising from the reasons. No monetary award or damages amount was determined, as the original malpractice claim seeking more than $105,000 was dismissed and that dismissal was upheld on appeal. The appeal was heard on September 19, 2025, and the decision was dated February 3, 2026.