Executive Summary – Key Legal & Evidentiary Issues

• Whether the claim against Ms. Lombard is statute-barred under The Limitations Act.

• Dispute over the scope and effect of a mutual release signed before the current action.

• Allegations of breach of fiduciary duty and improper handling of client files.

• Validity of Ms. Lombard’s communications to Class Action clients upon leaving the firm.

• Determination of whether the claim has legal merit requiring a trial.

• Questions around whether a summary judgment dismissal was final or interlocutory.

Facts of the Case

The Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan considered a legal battle arising from the breakdown of a professional relationship within a law firm. The appellant, Alisa R. Lombard, was formerly employed by Ron S. Maurice Professional Corporation, operating as Maurice Law, a firm specializing in class actions on behalf of Indigenous peoples.

Ms. Lombard joined Maurice Law in June 2017 to assist with a developing class action. By October 2017, the class action was underway with her direct involvement. However, in March 2019, she left Maurice Law and began working with another firm, Semaganis Worme Legal, taking aspects of the class action with her.

Maurice Law alleged that Lombard:

• Informed class action clients of her departure,

• Caused harm and financial loss to the firm,

• Took confidential or proprietary materials related to the class action.

As a result, Maurice Law sued Lombard and others for:

• Breach of contract

• Breach of fiduciary duty

• Unjust enrichment

• Tortious acts: including conversion and conspiracy

In response, Ms. Lombard brought a summary judgment application to dismiss the claims against her, arguing:

1. The lawsuit was barred by the two-year limitation period under The Limitations Act.

2. A mutual release agreement previously signed by the parties barred the claims.

3. The case had no legal merit and should not proceed to trial.

Arguments and Court’s Analysis

1. Limitations Argument

Ms. Lombard claimed that the action was filed too late. The dispute centered on whether the claim was issued on March 1 or March 2, 2021 — the difference of a day being crucial due to the two-year limitation period starting March 1, 2019.

The Chambers judge found:

• The claim was effectively filed on March 1, when it was deposited in the court registry’s dropbox during COVID-19 restrictions.
• That the Rule 13-24(1) (defining when a claim is “issued”) was presumptive, not determinative, and allowed flexibility due to the pandemic.

The Court of Appeal agreed, holding that:

• The claim was not statute-barred.
• The determination on this point was final, meaning no trial was needed for the limitation issue.

2. Mutual Release Agreement

A prior release agreement signed in a small claims matter was raised by Lombard as a bar to the current lawsuit. The clause excluded claims for breach of fiduciary duty or ethics violations, but there was disagreement over whether the current claims were covered or excluded.

The Chambers judge held:

• There was insufficient evidence to resolve the parties' intentions behind the release.
• Credibility issues and the context of the release required a full trial.
• Summary judgment was not appropriate on this basis.

The Court of Appeal upheld this finding, confirming that the judge was right to require trial on this question.

3. Legal Merit of the Claims

Lombard also argued the case lacked legal foundation. She claimed Maurice Law:

• Consented to the file transfers,
• Did not own the files at issue,
• Could have used statutory remedies under The Class Actions Act instead.

The Chambers judge ruled:

• The facts were disputed, particularly the scope of Lombard’s authority and communications to clients.
• These issues involved questions of credibility and context inappropriate for summary judgment.
• The matter must go to trial, except for the limitation defence which was resolved.

Outcome

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal:

• Dismissed Ms. Lombard’s appeal in full.

• Found no legal or factual error in the lower court’s dismissal of summary judgment.

• Ruled the limitation issue was properly determined and required no further trial.

• Ordered costs against Ms. Lombard on Column 2 of the Court of Appeal’s tariff.