Mistrial application by Northlands cashiers rejected, wrongful dismissal trial ordered to resume

Northlands parking gates. File photo.

A justice has denied a request for a mistrial by a group of former Northlands cashiers who say their original lawyer was racist and unprofessional, which they argued could skew the court's opinion of their claim.

The cashiers were seeking $9.7 million, alleging they were wrongfully terminated from their jobs in 2015 and blamed for more than $1 million in missing revenue.

The wrongful dismissal and defamation civil trial began in the spring.

However, according to notes in the justice's decision on Sept. 2, they soon sought to speak directly with Justice Thomas Rothwell. That request was denied and shortly after, the group's lawyer, Glenda Pidde, asked for and received approval to withdraw as counsel.

In their mistrial application, the cashiers accuse Pidde of "inappropriate and unprofessional conduct," failing to accept a settlement offer, and withdrawing part of their claim without their instruction, and more.

Affidavits they submitted showed Pidde used "coarse and racist language in her interactions with some of the Plaintiffs," Rothwell wrote. The justice also found Pidde's "self-disclosed use of alcohol and cannabis and requests for a 'wake up call' prior to court is inconsistent with professional conduct and does little to inspire confidence in her ability to represent the Plaintiffs" and agreed the affidavits "reveal a lack of trial preparation on Ms. Pidde's part with respect to readying the witnesses for examination."

The defendants – Edmonton Northlands and its former president and CEO Tim Reid – opposed the mistrial application. They argued a mistrial would "not remedy inappropriate or unprofessional conduct nor will it revive an expired offer of settlement." They also said a mistrial and subsequent delay in proceedings would affect their ability to defend themselves "because Northlands is winding down its operations." Finally, the defendants also argued the cashiers did not prove they had suffered "incurable prejudice."

In deciding whether or not to grant the cashiers' application, Rothwell needed to consider whether a miscarriage of justice had occurred.

He concluded the cashiers had suffered prejudice during the court process, but that it was not incurable. A mistrial, he decided, would not remedy the situation. Instead, he suggested some of the plaintiffs' concerns could be addressed by continuing the trial, such as recalling witnesses to testify.

"The Plaintiffs’ concern regarding the Court’s perception of their claim is understandable; however, their former counsel’s conduct will not play any role in the assessment of the evidence or consideration of the legal issues in this matter," Rothwell wrote in his decision.

He also agreed with the Northlands party that a mistrial would not save any time.

"The Plaintiffs desire [sic] to start over is understandable; however, a mistrial is an extraordinary remedy and it should only be ordered when absolutely necessary.

"This is not one of those situations."

Rothwell ordered the matter be scheduled to continue.

He said the cashiers could consider applying to the court to address the aspect of their claim they say Pidde withdrew against their wishes.