SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: O Regan Properties Limited v. Business Development Bank of Canada, 2018 NSSC 193. O Regan Properties Limited
|
|
- Dwain Matthews
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: O Regan Properties Limited v. Business Development Bank of Canada, 2018 NSSC 193 Between: O Regan Properties Limited Date: Docket: Hfx No Registry: Halifax v. Applicant Business Development Bank of Canada Respondent Decision: Objections to Affidavit Judge: Heard: Counsel: The Honourable Justice Joshua M. Arnold July 4, 2018, in Halifax, Nova Scotia Maurice Chiasson, Q.C. and Sara Scott, for the Applicant John T. Rafferty, Q.C., for the Respondent
2 Page 2 By the Court: Overview [1] O Regan Properties Limited has made an application for a determination of funds held (or that had been held) by PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc. as Receiver for Tour Tech East Limited and Nova Scotia Limited. [2] As part of the receivership, O Regan made a proposal to purchase the security held by Business Development Bank of Canada over the assets of the companies. An agreement was entered into between O Regan and PricewaterhouseCoopers. An Assignment of Debt and Security was entered into between O Regan and BDC, conveying BDC s debt and security to O Regan. [3] A dispute arose between the parties regarding certain funds paid by PricewaterhouseCoopers to BDC. O Regan alleges that this payment was contrary to the terms of the Agreement, and seeks payment of those funds. [4] In support of their position, O Regan filed the affidavit of Jon Legatto, Chief Financial Officer at O Regan. BDC makes the following objections to Mr. Legatto s affidavit, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 39.04: Issue 1: whether the following portions of the Legatto Affidavit offend the parole [sic] evidence rule, such that they are inadmissible and should be struck by this Court: (i) The second, fourth, and fifth sentences of paragraph 17; (ii) The first, second, and fourth sentences of paragraph 22; and (iii) Paragraph 50; Issue 2: whether paragraph 51 of the Legatto Affidavit contains argument, not fact, such that it is inadmissible and should be struck by this Court; and Issue 3: whether the following portions of the Legatto Affidavit refer to without prejudice communications covered by settlement privilege, such that they are inadmissible and should be struck by this Court: (i) (ii) Paragraphs 42, 43, and 44; and Exhibits Q, R, and S. [5] The objection to paragraph 51 was conceded by O Regan and that paragraph will be struck from Mr. Legatto s affidavit.
3 Page 3 Parol Evidence [6] In Sattva Capital Corp v. Creston Moly Corp, 2014 SCC 53, Rothstein J. speaking for the unanimous court, reviewed the parol evidence rule as it now exists. He said: 59 It is necessary to say a word about consideration of the surrounding circumstances and the parol evidence rule. The parol evidence rule precludes admission of evidence outside the words of the written contract that would add to, subtract from, vary, or contradict a contract that has been wholly reduced to writing (King, at para. 35; and Hall, at p. 53). To this end, the rule precludes, among other things, evidence of the subjective intentions of the parties (Hall, at pp ; and Eli Lilly & Co. v. Novopharm Ltd., 1998 CanLII 791 (SCC), [1998] 2 S.C.R. 129, at paras , per Iacobucci J.). The purpose of the parol evidence rule is primarily to achieve finality and certainty in contractual obligations, and secondarily to hamper a party s ability to use fabricated or unreliable evidence to attack a written contract (United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 579 v. Bradco Construction Ltd., 1993 CanLII 88 (SCC), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 316, at pp , per Sopinka J.). [7] Justice Rothstein explained the reasoning for a shift away from the traditional approach to contract interpretation, under which interpretation of the written document was always a question of law: 46 The shift away from the historical approach in Canada appears to be based on two developments. The first is the adoption of an approach to contractual interpretation which directs courts to have regard for the surrounding circumstances of the contract -- often referred to as the factual matrix -- when interpreting a written contract (Hall, at pp. 13, and 127; and J. D. McCamus, The Law of Contracts (2nd ed. 2012), at pp ). The second is the explanation of the difference between questions of law and questions of mixed fact and law provided in Canada (Director of Investigation and Research) v. Southam Inc., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 748, at para. 35, and Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235, at paras. 26 and Regarding the first development, the interpretation of contracts has evolved towards a practical, common-sense approach not dominated by technical rules of construction. The overriding concern is to determine "the intent of the parties and the scope of their understanding" (Jesuit Fathers of Upper Canada v. Guardian Insurance Co. of Canada, 2006 SCC 21, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 744, at para. 27 per LeBel J.; see also Tercon Contractors Ltd. v. British Columbia (Transportation and Highways), 2010 SCC 4, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 69, at paras per Cromwell J.). To do so, a decision-maker must read the contract as a whole, giving the words used their ordinary and grammatical meaning, consistent with the surrounding
4 circumstances known to the parties at the time of formation of the contract. Consideration of the surrounding circumstances recognizes that ascertaining contractual intention can be difficult when looking at words on their own, because words alone do not have an immutable or absolute meaning: No contracts are made in a vacuum: there is always a setting in which they have to be placed.... In a commercial contract it is certainly right that the court should know the commercial purpose of the contract and this in turn presupposes knowledge of the genesis of the transaction, the background, the context, the market in which the parties are operating. (Reardon Smith Line, at p. 574, per Lord Wilberforce) Page 4 [8] In explaining that the words of the contract must be interpreted with consideration of the factual matrix, Rothstein J. stated: 49 As to the second development, the historical approach to contractual interpretation does not fit well with the definition of a pure question of law identified in Housen and Southam. Questions of law "are questions about what the correct legal test is" (Southam, at para. 35). Yet in contractual interpretation, the goal of the exercise is to ascertain the objective intent of the parties -- a fact-specific goal -- through the application of legal principles of interpretation. This appears closer to a question of mixed fact and law, defined in Housen as "applying a legal standard to a set of facts" (para. 26; see also Southam, at para. 35). However, some courts have questioned whether this definition, which was developed in the context of a negligence action, can be readily applied to questions of contractual interpretation, and suggest that contractual interpretation is primarily a legal affair (see for example Bell Canada, at para. 25). 50 With respect for the contrary view, I am of the opinion that the historical approach should be abandoned. Contractual interpretation involves issues of mixed fact and law as it is an exercise in which the principles of contractual interpretation are applied to the words of the written contract, considered in light of the factual matrix. [9] Justice Rothstein emphasized the importance of determining the parties objective intent in interpreting a contract: 55 Although that caution was expressed in the context of a negligence case, it applies, in my opinion, to contractual interpretation as well. As mentioned above, the goal of contractual interpretation, to ascertain the objective intentions of the parties, is inherently fact specific. The close relationship between the selection and application of principles of contractual interpretation and the construction ultimately given to the instrument means that the circumstances in which a question of law can be extricated from the interpretation process will be rare. In the absence
5 of a legal error of the type described above, no appeal lies under the AA from an arbitrator's interpretation of a contract. Page 5 [10] While the parties objective intent must be determined, and therefore the surrounding circumstances considered, Rothstein J. explained that the surrounding circumstances cannot be allowed to overwhelm the words of the agreement. He also explained that the surrounding circumstances must consist only of objective evidence of the background facts at the time the contract was executed: 57 While the surrounding circumstances will be considered in interpreting the terms of a contract, they must never be allowed to overwhelm the words of that agreement... The goal of examining such evidence is to deepen a decision-maker's understanding of the mutual and objective intentions of the parties as expressed in the words of the contract. The interpretation of a written contractual provision must always be grounded in the text and read in light of the entire contract... While the surrounding circumstances are relied upon in the interpretive process, courts cannot use them to deviate from the text such that the court effectively creates a new agreement The nature of the evidence that can be relied upon under the rubric of "surrounding circumstances" will necessarily vary from case to case. It does, however, have its limits. It should consist only of objective evidence of the background facts at the time of the execution of the contract, that is, knowledge that was or reasonably ought to have been within the knowledge of both parties at or before the date of contracting. Subject to these requirements and the parol evidence rule discussed below, this includes, in the words of Lord Hoffmann, "absolutely anything which would have affected the way in which the language of the document would have been understood by a reasonable man" (Investors Compensation Scheme, at p. 114). Whether something was or reasonably ought to have been within the common knowledge of the parties at the time of execution of the contract is a question of fact. [Emphasis added.] [11] Justice Rothstein determined that the parol evidence rule does not preclude the admission of evidence of surrounding circumstances: 60 The parol evidence rule does not apply to preclude evidence of the surrounding circumstances. Such evidence is consistent with the objectives of finality and certainty because it is used as an interpretive aid for determining the meaning of the written words chosen by the parties, not to change or overrule the meaning of those words. The surrounding circumstances are facts known or facts that reasonably ought to have been known to both parties at or before the date of contracting; therefore, the concern of unreliability does not arise. 61 Some authorities and commentators suggest that the parol evidence rule is an anachronism, or, at the very least, of limited application in view of the myriad of
6 exceptions to it... For the purposes of this appeal, it is sufficient to say that the parol evidence rule does not apply to preclude evidence of surrounding circumstances when interpreting the words of a written contract. Analysis Page 6 [12] The parties agree that for the purpose of this motion to strike I should consider the contract ambiguous. The Applicant reserves the right to argue at the hearing proper that the written contract is not ambiguous. Therefore, the question on this motion to strike on the issue of the parol evidence rule is: Do the sentences in the affidavit challenged by the Respondent assist in determining the surrounding circumstances of the written contract? [13] The impugned paragraphs of the Legatto affidavit are the following: 17. After receiving this proposal, further discussions were held with between [sic] myself, Mr. O Regan and Patrick O Regan. Despite our position that our initial offers were fair and reasonable, we agreed that we would again increase our offer, this time to the full amount as per BDC s proof of claim, being $4,730,995.43, but no more. I was authorized by Mr. O Regan to commit to a payment equal to the amount as per BDC s proof of claim, but no more. It was never our intent or expectation that we would pay any of BDC s interest or costs, or to provide for BDC s interest or costs in any way. We concluded that if this offer was not accepted by BDC, we would not proceed with the transaction. I then called Mr. Clarke and indicated to him that OPL would purchase the BDC security at the full amount of BDC s Proof of Claim, $4,730,995.43, but that was the maximum that we were willing to pay. I confirmed to him that this was our last and best offer and if this was refused by BDC, we would terminate the negotiations. 22. As a result of the discussions between Mr. Clarke and me, and the confirming the terms of the agreement reached, OPL was under the clear belief that once the purchase agreement was finalized, all of the security held by BDC over the assets and property of the Companies would belong to OPL. This was in exchange for OPL paying the full amount owing to BDC, being the amount provided by BDC as the full payout owing to it by the Companies. At no point was there any discussion regarding payment of BDC s interest and costs, or BDC recovering their interest and costs through any other means. Had this matter been raised, we would have terminated the agreement and negotiations immediately and not proceeded with the deal.
7 50. Once OPL paid the purchase price to BDC, OPL expected that any additional funds, including all cash and accounts receivable, would belong to the Companies. Accordingly, BDC would have no entitlement to the cash and accounts receivable of the Companies. [Emphasis added] Page 7 [14] The Respondent urges the court to allow these paragraphs to remain in their entirety, waiting until the remainder of the evidence and arguments are presented to the court before ascribing the appropriate weight to the evidence in question. Although these sentences appear to focus on the subjective belief of the affiant, depending on the rest of the evidence and argument at the hearing, the Respondent says, it is possible that the information could be part of the factual matrix, and could be objective evidence of the background facts at the time of the execution of the contract, and part of the rubric of the surrounding circumstances. More specifically, the Respondent says the evidence may show that these positions were known to the other parties. [15] I will allow the paragraphs in question to remain intact until the conclusion of the hearing. At that time, if the impugned evidence is not established to be objective evidence of the background facts at the time of the execution of the contract, I will either exclude those paragraphs or give them no weight. Settlement Privilege [16] The Applicant argues that paragraphs 42, 43 and 44 of the Legatto affidavit, along with their related exhibits, are without prejudice communications covered by settlement privilege and should be struck out. [17] In Sable Offshore Energy v. Ameron International Group Corp., 2013 SCC 37, Abella J., for the court, stated that while settlement discussions are privileged, labelling something without prejudice does not determine admissibility. What matters instead is the intent of the parties to settle the action: 13 Settlement negotiations have long been protected by the common law rule that "without prejudice" communications made in the course of such negotiations are inadmissible... The settlement privilege created by the "without prejudice" rule was based on the understanding that parties will be more likely to settle if they have confidence from the outset that their negotiations will not be disclosed. As Oliver L.J. of the English Court of Appeal explained in Cutts v. Head, [1984] 1 All E.R. 597, at p. 605:
8 [P]arties should be encouraged so far as possible to settle their disputes without resort to litigation and should not be discouraged by the knowledge that anything that is said in the course of such negotiations... may be used to their prejudice in the course of the proceedings. They should, as it was expressed by Clauson J in Scott Paper Co v. Drayton Paper Works Ltd (1927) 44 RPC 151 at 157, be encouraged freely and frankly to put their cards on the table. What is said during negotiations, in other words, will be more open, and therefore more fruitful, if the parties know that it cannot be subsequently disclosed. 14 Rush & Tompkins confirmed that settlement privilege extends beyond documents and communications expressly designated to be "without prejudice". In that case, a contractor settled its action against one defendant, the Greater London Council (the GLC), while maintaining it against the other defendant, the Carey contractors. The House of Lords considered whether communications made in the process of negotiating the settlement with the GLC should be admissible in the ongoing litigation with the Carey contractors. Lord Griffiths reached two conclusions of significance for this case. First, although the privilege is often referred to as the rule about "without prejudice" communications, those precise words are not required to invoke the privilege. What matters instead is the intent of the parties to settle the action (p. 739). Any negotiations undertaken with this purpose are inadmissible. Page 8 [18] In Brown v. Cape Breton (Regional Municipality), 2011 NSCA 32, Bryson J.A. outlined the three conditions that must be met to attract settlement privilege: 30 It is generally accepted that there are three conditions that must be met to attract settlement privilege: (1) A litigious dispute must be in existence or in contemplation; (2) The communication must be made with the express or implied intention that it would not be disclosed to the court in the event that negotiations failed; (3) The purpose of communication must be to attempt to effect a settlement. (per Sopinka, at para ) [19] As the Respondent points out, to be covered by settlement privilege, a communication must contain at least a hint of potential compromise or negotiation. If a communication is an unconditional assertion of rights without any connection to the possibility of settlement or negotiation, it will not be covered by settlement privilege. This proposition was noted in Bellatrix Exploration Ltd. v. Penn West Petroleum Ltd., 2013 ABCA 10, where the unanimous court stated:
9 24 Courts appear to have accepted that the types of communications covered by the settlement privilege require at least a hint of potential compromise or negotiation: see, for example, Hansraj at para 20. However, an unconditional assertion of rights without any connection to the possibility of settlement or negotiation do not fall within the scope of the rule: Buckinghamshire County Council v. Moran, [1990] 1 Ch 623, [1989] 3 All ER 225 (CA), cited in Hansraj at para 19. Communications of this type do not offer any potential for compromise, which is the interest the privilege is intended to protect. 25 The notation "without prejudice" is not conclusive in establishing privilege. If the contents of a communication are truly in furtherance of settlement, and therefore privileged, it makes no difference whether the communication is marked "without prejudice" or not. A communication that is not in substance privileged does not become so just because one party places "without prejudice" on it. Likewise, the absence of the words "without prejudice" means nothing if the communication is truly privileged Analysis Page 9 [20] In conducting the analysis set out in Brown regarding the communications discussed in paragraphs 42, 43 and 44 of the affidavit, I reach the following conclusions: 1. A litigious dispute was in existence or contemplation; 2. The exhibit referenced in paragraph 43 is marked without prejudice written by the Respondent, however, the exhibits referenced in paragraphs 42 and 44 are not marked either with or without prejudice. Such a label is not determinative in any event; 3. Each piece of correspondence found at Exhibits Q, R and S is merely an unconditional assertion of each parties position and rights. None of that correspondence refers to the possibility of settlement or negotiation in any way. Of course, as the Applicant points out, [s]ettlements do not simply materialize. There is always the advancing of positions, negotiations and often, the sharing of information in pursuit of the deal. Such information would be protected against subsequent disclosure by settlement privilege. (Sable Offshore Energy v. Ameron International Corporation, 2015 NSCA 8, at para. 78). However, the impugned paragraphs and exhibits do not fall into this category of evidence. [21] I conclude that paragraphs should not be struck, as they do not meet the requirements of settlement privilege.
10 Page 10 Conclusion [22] Paragraphs 17, 22 and 50 will remain intact. Once argument is heard, the Applicant s argument to strike can be revisited or, as with all of the evidence, I will ascribe the appropriate weight, if any, to be given to the passages in question. [23] Paragraphs 42, 43 and 44, along with their related exhibits, will not be struck as they do not fall under the umbrella of settlement privilege. Arnold, J.
Recent Developments in the Canadian Law of Contract
Honest Performance and Absolutely Everything Else By Ryan P. Krushelnitzky and Sandra L. Corbett QC Recent Developments in the Canadian Law of Contract Bhasin and Sattva represent important changes and
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Innotech Aviation v. Skylink Express Inc., 2017 NSSC 176
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Innotech Aviation v. Skylink Express Inc., 2017 NSSC 176 Date: 2017-06-29 Docket: Hfx No. 454660 Registry: Halifax Between: Innotech Aviation, a division of IMP Group
More informationNOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Taylor v. Nova Scotia (Health and Wellness), 2018 NSCA 57
NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Taylor v. Nova Scotia (Health and Wellness), 2018 NSCA 57 Date: 20180628 Docket: CA 466554 Registry: Halifax Between: Mark Taylor, Jonathan Trites, Matthew Rigby,
More informationANNUAL REVIEW OF CIVIL LITIGATION
ANNUAL REVIEW OF CIVIL LITIGATION 2017 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE TODD L. ARCHIBALD SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (ONTARIO) # 2017 Thomson Reuters Canada NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER: All rights reserved. No part
More informationGalliford Try Construction Ltd v Mott MacDonald Ltd [2008] APP.L.R. 03/14
JUDGMENT : Mr Justice Coulson : TCC. 14 th March 2008 Introduction 1. This is an application by the Defendant for an order that paragraphs 39 to 48 inclusive of the witness statement of Mr Joseph Martin,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Book v. Tourism Nova Scotia, 2016 NSSC 253. v. Tourism Nova Scotia LIBRARY HEADING
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Book v. Tourism Nova Scotia, 2016 NSSC 253 Date: 2016-09-26 Docket: Hfx No. 453012 Registry: Halifax Between: Robert Book v. Tourism Nova Scotia Applicant Respondent
More informationNOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Purdy v. Bishop, 2017 NSCA 84
NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Purdy v. Bishop, 2017 NSCA 84 Date: 20171128 Docket: CA 453201 Registry: Halifax Between: Bruce and Frances Purdy v. Appellants Evelyn Bishop, Carole Black, Johanne
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Hyson v. Nova Scotia (Public Service LTD), 2016 NSSC 153
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Hyson v. Nova Scotia (Public Service LTD), 2016 NSSC 153 Date: 2016-06-16 Docket: Hfx No. 447446 Registry: Halifax Between: Annette Louise Hyson Applicant v. Nova
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT. SWINTON, THORBURN, and COPELAND JJ. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
CITATION: Movati Athletic (Group Inc. v. Bergeron, 2018 ONSC 7258 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-18-2411 DATE: 20181206 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT SWINTON, THORBURN, and COPELAND
More informationNOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: MacNutt v. Acadia University, 2017 NSCA 57. Laura MacNutt/PIER 101 Home Designs Inc.
Between: NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: MacNutt v. Acadia University, 2017 NSCA 57 Laura MacNutt/PIER 101 Home Designs Inc. v. Date: 20170620 Docket: CA 455902 / CA 458781 Registry: Halifax Appellant
More information2008 BCCA 404 Get Acceptance Corporation v. British Columbia (Registrar of Mortgage Br...
Page 1 of 7 COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Get Acceptance Corporation v. British Columbia (Registrar of Mortgage Brokers), 2008 BCCA 404 Get Acceptance Corporation and Keith
More informationRandolph Raymond Dalzine, Rayah Dalzine and Ayana Dalzine, a minor by her litigation guardian, the Children s Lawyer
CITATION: Garrick v. Dalzine, 2015 ONSC 2175 COURT FILE NO.: CV-13-1757-00ES DATE: 2015-04-07 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ONTARIO RE: Martha Garrick Applicant v. Randolph Raymond Dalzine, Rayah Dalzine and
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: North Point Holdings Ltd. v. Palmeter, 2016 NSSC 39
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: North Point Holdings Ltd. v. Palmeter, 2016 NSSC 39 Date: 20160129 Docket: Hfx No. 317894 Registry: Halifax Between: North Point Holdings Limited and John Bashynski
More informationCourt Appealed From: Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador Trial Division (G) G1143 (2014 NLTD(G) 131)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Tuck v. Supreme Holdings, 2016 NLCA 40 Date: August 4, 2016 Docket: 14/96 BETWEEN: TANYA TUCK APPELLANT AND: SUPREME HOLDINGS
More informationNEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER
March 20, 2009 A-2009-004 NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER REPORT A-2009-004 Eastern Regional Integrated Health Authority Summary: The Applicant applied under
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Richmond (City) v. Campbell, 2017 BCSC 331 Date: 20170228 Docket: S156741 Registry: Vancouver Re: In the Matter of the Judicial Review Procedure Act,
More informationNOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Baypoint Holdings Ltd. v. Royal Bank of Canada, 2018 NSCA 17. v. Royal Bank of Canada
NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Baypoint Holdings Ltd. v. Royal Bank of Canada, 2018 NSCA 17 Date: 20180221 Docket: CA 460374/464441 Registry: Halifax Between: Baypoint Holdings Limited, and John
More informationREVIEW REPORT FI December 29, 2015 Department of Finance
Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for Nova Scotia Report of the Commissioner (Review Officer) Catherine Tully REVIEW REPORT FI-13-28 December 29, 2015 Department of Finance Summary: The
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA IN BANKRUPTYCY AND INSOLVENCY Citation: Melanson (Re), 2018 NSSC 279
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA IN BANKRUPTYCY AND INSOLVENCY Citation: Melanson (Re), 2018 NSSC 279 Date: 20181102 Docket: Hfx No. 470416 (B-41611) Registry: Halifax In the Matter of the Proposal of Barclay
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: British Columbia (Ministry of Justice) v. Maddock, 2015 BCSC 746 Date: 20150423 Docket: 14-3365 Registry: Victoria In the matter of the decisions of the
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Hannem v. Stilet, 2015 NSSC 341
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Hannem v. Stilet, 2015 NSSC 341 Date: 20151126 Docket: Hfx No. 429723 Registry: Halifax Between: Mark Wesley Hannem Plaintiff v. Daniel Marvin Stilet, Shannon Lynne
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Bank of Montreal v. Linden Leas Limited, 2017 NSSC 223
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Bank of Montreal v. Linden Leas Limited, 2017 NSSC 223 Date: 20170818 Docket: Tru No. 408708 Registry: Truro Between: Bank of Montreal v. Applicant Linden Leas Limited
More informationMEMORANDUM TO COUNCIL
MEMORANDUM TO COUNCIL From: Lawrence Rubin Date: March 23, 2018 Subject: Professional Standards (Criminal) Committee Standard No. 3: Defence Obligations Regarding Disclosure FOR: APPROVAL INTRODUCTION
More informationPage: 2 In the Matter of In the Matter of the Workers Compensation Act, R.S.A. 2000, c.w-15, As Amended ( WCA ) And in the Matter of a Decision by the
Court of Queen s Bench of Alberta Citation: Homes by Avi Ltd. v. Alberta (Workers Compensation Board, Appeals Commission), 2007 ABQB 203 Date: 20070326 Docket: 0603 14909, 0603 14405, 0603 12833 Registry:
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Halliday v. Cape Breton District Health Authority, 2017 NSSC 201. Cape Breton District Health Authority
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Halliday v. Cape Breton District Health Authority, 2017 NSSC 201 Between: Jennifer Halliday v. Date: 2017-07-25 Docket: Sydney, No. 307567 Registry: Sydney Plaintiff
More informationBetween: Sandra Nicole Richards and John Paul Bartlett Richards, Executors on behalf of the Estate of Paul Thomas Richards
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Richards Estate v. Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services, 2019 NSSC 101 Date: 20190326 Docket: Hfx No. 445372 Registry: Halifax Between: Sandra Nicole
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Dalhousie University v. Cogeneration and Energy Management Engineering Inc., 2017 NSSC 303
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Dalhousie University v. Cogeneration and Energy Management Engineering Inc., 2017 NSSC 303 Date: 20171128 Docket: Hfx No. 458586 Registry: Halifax Between: Dalhousie
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 625 v. Nova Scotia Apprenticeship Agency, 2016 NSSC 242
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 625 v. Nova Scotia Apprenticeship Agency, 2016 NSSC 242 Date: 20160915 Docket: HFX443975/446485 Registry: Halifax
More informationNOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: An Jager v. Jager, 2018 NSCA 66. v. Wiebo Kevin Jager. The Honourable Justice Cindy A.
NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: An Jager v. Jager, 2018 NSCA 66 Date: 20180723 Docket: CA 472720 Registry: Halifax Between: Julie Deborah An Jager v. Wiebo Kevin Jager Applicant Respondent Judge:
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA
.. B-20 SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: Sable OflShore Energy Inc. v. Ameron International Corp., 2013 sec 3 7 DATE: 20130621 DOCKET: 34678 BEfWFm: Sable Offshore Energy Inc., as agent for and on behalf
More informationNOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Skinner v. Nova Scotia (Workers Compensation Appeals Tribunal), 2018 NSCA 23
NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Skinner v. Nova Scotia (Workers Compensation Appeals Tribunal), 2018 NSCA 23 Date: 20180309 Docket: CA 449275 Registry: Halifax Between: Wayne Skinner v. Workers Compensation
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Paulin v. Nova Scotia (Human Rights Commission), 2016 NSSC 363
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Paulin v. Nova Scotia (Human Rights Commission), 2016 NSSC 363 Between: Lorraine Paulin v. Date: 20160914 Docket: SYD No. 448445 Registry: Sydney Applicant Nova Scotia
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Intact Insurance Company v. Baxter Trucking Ltd., 2018 NSSC 23
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Intact Insurance Company v. Baxter Trucking Ltd., 2018 NSSC 23 Date: 20180205 Docket: AMH No. 432061 Registry: Amherst Between: Intact Insurance Company, subrogated
More informationHEARD: Before the Honourable Justice A. David MacAdam, at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on May 25 & June 15, 2000
Nova Scotia (Human Rights Commission) v. Sam's Place et al. Date: [20000803] Docket: [SH No. 163186] 1999 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA BETWEEN: THE NOVA SCOTIA HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION APPLICANT
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Ru, 2018 NSSC 155. Dai Ru. Her Majesty the Queen
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Ru, 2018 NSSC 155 Date: 20180622 Docket: Hfx No. 472559 Registry: Halifax Between: Dai Ru v. Appellant Her Majesty the Queen Respondent Judge: Heard: Counsel:
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Southwest Construction Management Ltd. v. EllisDon Corporation, 2018 NSSC 270
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Southwest Construction Management Ltd. v. EllisDon Corporation, 2018 NSSC 270 Date: 20181024 Docket: Hfx. No. 440897 Registry: Halifax Between: Southwest Construction
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Fawson Estate v. Deveau, 2015 NSSC 355
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Fawson Estate v. Deveau, 2015 NSSC 355 Date: 20150917 Docket: Hfx No. 412751 Registry: Halifax Between: James Robert Fawson, James Robert Fawson, as the personal
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Walcott v. Walcott, 2017 NSSC 327 LIBRARY HEADING
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Walcott v. Walcott, 2017 NSSC 327 Date: 20170926 Docket: File No. 460559 Registry: Sydney Between: Rita Walcott and Gerald Walcott v. Georgina Walcott and Joseph
More informationSupreme Court of Canada considers sanctions imposed by Securities Regulators -- Re: Cartaway Resources Corp, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 672 Douglas Worndl
Supreme Court of Canada considers sanctions imposed by Securities Regulators -- Re: Cartaway Resources Corp, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 672 Douglas Worndl February 2005 In April of 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada
More informationIndexed As: Hopkins v. Ventura Custom Homes Ltd. Manitoba Court of Appeal Hamilton, Chartier, C.J.M., and Beard, JJ.A. July 5, 2013.
William Eric Hopkins and Christa Leigh Hopkins (plaintiffs/respondents) v. Ventura Custom Homes Ltd. (defendant/appellant) (AI 12-30-07742; 2013 MBCA 67) Indexed As: Hopkins v. Ventura Custom Homes Ltd.
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Walsh Estate v. Coady Estate, 2017 NSSC 162
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Walsh Estate v. Coady Estate, 2017 NSSC 162 Date: 2017-06-09 Docket: Pictou, No. 353685 Halifax, No. 370332 Pictou, No. 390342 Registry: Pictou Between: Tammy Walsh
More informationCitation: Trans Canada Credit v. Judson Date: PESCTD 57 Docket: SCC Registry: Charlottetown
Citation: Trans Canada Credit v. Judson Date: 20020906 2002 PESCTD 57 Docket: SCC-22372 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION BETWEEN: TRANS CANADA
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA805/2010 [2011] NZCA 346. SHEPPARD INDUSTRIES LIMITED First Appellant
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA805/2010 [2011] NZCA 346 BETWEEN AND AND SHEPPARD INDUSTRIES LIMITED First Appellant AVANTI BICYCLE COMPANY LIMITED Second Appellant SPECIALIZED BICYCLE COMPONENTS
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA
COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And And Before: Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc. v. Wedgemount Power Limited Partnership, 2018 BCCA 283 Date: 20180709 Dockets:
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Bresson v.nova Scotia (Community Services), 2016 NSSC 64. v. Nova Scotia (Department of Community Service)
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Bresson v.nova Scotia (Community Services), 2016 NSSC 64 Date: 20160118 Docket: SYD No. 443281 Registry: Sydney Between: Jainey Lee Bresson v. Nova Scotia (Department
More informationALBERTA OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER ORDER H September 22, 2006 CALGARY HEALTH REGION. Review Number H0960
ALBERTA OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER ORDER H2006-003 September 22, 2006 CALGARY HEALTH REGION Review Number H0960 Office URL: http://www.oipc.ab.ca Summary: The Applicant s husband
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And A & G Investment Inc. v. 0915630 B.C. Ltd., 2013 BCSC 1784 A & G Investment Inc. 0915630 B.C. Ltd. Date: 20130927 Docket: S132980 Registry:
More informationNOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Frank George s Island Investments Ltd. v. Shannon, 2016 NSCA 24
NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Frank George s Island Investments Ltd. v. Shannon, 2016 NSCA 24 Between: Date: 20160404 Docket: CA 441130 Registry: Halifax Frank George s Island Investments Limited,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: C&C Technologies International Inc v. McGregor Geoscience Ltd., 2016 NSSC 55
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: C&C Technologies International Inc v. McGregor Geoscience Ltd., 2016 NSSC 55 Date: 20160226 Docket: Hfx. No. 430818 Registry: Halifax Between: C&C Technologies International
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Bridgewater (Town) v. South Shore Regional School Board, 2017 NSSC 25. v. South Shore Regional School Board
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Bridgewater (Town) v. South Shore Regional School Board, 2017 NSSC 25 Date: 20161220 Docket: Bwt No. 457414 Registry: Bridgewater Between: Town of Bridgewater v.
More informationNOVA SCOTIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL
NOVA SCOTIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL Applicant: [X] Respondents: [X] and The Workers Compensation Board of Nova Scotia (Board) SECTION 29 APPLICATION DECISION Representatives: [X] Action:
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA IN BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY. Citation: Mullen (Re), 2016 NSSC 203
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA IN BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY Citation: Mullen (Re), 2016 NSSC 203 Date: August 3, 2016 Docket: Halifax No. 38044 Estate No. 51-1847649 Registry: Halifax In the Matter of the
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Barkhouse (Re), 2018 NSSC 101. In the Matter of The Bankruptcy & Insolvency Act, RCS. 1985, c.
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Barkhouse (Re), 2018 NSSC 101 Date: 20180426 Docket: Hfx. No. 472745 Registry: Halifax In the Matter of The Bankruptcy & Insolvency Act, RCS. 1985, c. B-3, as amended
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Doucette v. Nova Scotia, 2016 NSSC 78
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Doucette v. Nova Scotia, 2016 NSSC 78 Date: 2016-03-24 Docket: Hfx No. 412065 Registry: Halifax Between: Laura Doucette Plaintiff v. Her Majesty in right of the Province
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: White v. Iosipescu, 2015 NSSC 257
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: White v. Iosipescu, 2015 NSSC 257 Date: 2015-09-30 Docket: Halifax, No. 344284 Registry: Halifax Between: Anne-Marie White, Margaret White and Jenny White Plaintiffs
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Moore v. Catholic Episcopal Corporation, 2015 NSSC 308
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Moore v. Catholic Episcopal Corporation, 2015 NSSC 308 Date: 20150624 Docket: Syd No. 379320 Registry: Sydney Between: Mary Rose Moore, Robert Moore, Natashia McSween,
More informationNOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Nova Scotia Association of Health Organizations Long Term Disability Plan Trust Fund v. Amirault, 2017 NSCA 50
NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Nova Scotia Association of Health Organizations Long Term Disability Plan Trust Fund v. Amirault, 2017 NSCA 50 Date: 20170613 Docket: CA 460158 Registry: Halifax Between:
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Reed v. Nova Scotia (Human Rights Commission), 2017 NSSC 85
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Reed v. Nova Scotia (Human Rights Commission), 2017 NSSC 85 Date: 2017-03-28 Docket: Hfx. No. 456782 Registry: Halifax Between: Warren Reed, Gerry Post, Ben Marson,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Walter Energy Canada Holdings, Inc. (Re), 2018 BCSC 1135 Date: 20180709 Docket: S1510120 Registry: Vancouver In the Matter of the Companies Creditors
More informationThe clause (ACAS Form COT-3) provided:
THE CONSTRUCTION OF COMPROMISE AGREEMENTS The leading case is Bank of Credit and Commerce International SAI v Ali [2001] UKHL 8; [2002] 1 AC 251. It was also an extreme case where the majority of the House
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: MacDonald v. Deutsche Bank AG, 2016 NSSC 284
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: MacDonald v. Deutsche Bank AG, 2016 NSSC 284 Date: 2016-10-26 Docket: HFX442818 Registry: Halifax Between: Richard Hugh MacDonald Plaintiff v. Deutsche Bank AG, Canada
More informationNOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: R. v. Spencer, 2018 NSCA 3. v. Her Majesty the Queen
NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: R. v. Spencer, 2018 NSCA 3 Date: 20180109 Docket: CAC 470957 Registry: Halifax Between: Rita Mary Spencer v. Her Majesty the Queen Applicant Respondent Judge: Motion
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Yates v. Nova Scotia Board of Examiners in Psychology, 2018 NSSC 127. Pamela Yates
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Yates v. Nova Scotia Board of Examiners in Psychology, 2018 NSSC 127 Between: Date: 20180531 Docket: Hfx. No. 460070 Registry: Halifax Pamela Yates v. Applicant Nova
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA. CITATION: R. v. Punko, 2012 SCC 39 DATE: DOCKET: 34135, 34193
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: R. v. Punko, 2012 SCC 39 DATE: 20120720 DOCKET: 34135, 34193 BETWEEN: AND BETWEEN: John Virgil Punko Appellant and Her Majesty The Queen Respondent Randall Richard Potts
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
2011 BCSC 112 British Columbia (Attorney General) v. British Columbia (Information a... Page 1 of 24 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And British Columbia (Attorney General)
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Drescher v. Drescher Estate, 2007 NSSC 352. Docket: SH. No
Page 1 of 7 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Drescher v. Drescher Estate, 2007 NSSC 352 Docket: SH. No. 278018 Date: 20071121 Registry: Halifax Between: Gisela Drescher, by her attorney Alex
More informationCOURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA
Date: 20180914 Docket: CI 13-01-85087 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: Paterson et al. v. Walker et al. Cited as: 2018 MBQB 150 COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA B E T W E E N: SHARRON PATERSON AND ) RUSSELL
More informationNOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Surette v. Nova Scotia (Workers Compensation Board), 2017 NSCA 81
NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Surette v. Nova Scotia (Workers Compensation Board), 2017 NSCA 81 Date: 20171103 Docket: CA 460849 Registry: Halifax In the matter of: A stated case pursuant to s.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: West Vancouver Police Department v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2016 BCSC 934 Date: 20160525 Docket: S152619 Registry: Vancouver
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
BETWEEN COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Trillium Motor World Ltd. v. General Motors of Canada Limited, 2017 ONCA 545 DATE: 20170704 DOCKET: C60838 Cronk, van Rensburg and Pardu JJ.A. Trillium Motor
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Citation: Gringmuth v. The Corp. of the Dist. of North Vancouver Date: 20000524 2000 BCSC 807 Docket: C995402 Registry: Vancouver IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN: AXEL GRINGMUTH PLAINTIFF
More informationPROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Brown, 2016 NSPC 63. Her Majesty. v. Michael Anthony Brown. The Honourable Judge Paul Scovil
PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Brown, 2016 NSPC 63 Date: 2016-11-04 Docket: 2802941, 2802942 Registry: Halifax Between: Her Majesty v. Michael Anthony Brown Judge: Heard: The Honourable
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Probate Court of Nova Scotia Citation: Ahern Estate (Re), 2018 NSSC 294
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Probate Court of Nova Scotia Citation: Ahern Estate (Re), 2018 NSSC 294 Date: 20181122 Docket: Hfx. No. 471092 Probate No. 60756 Registry: Halifax Between: John K. Ahern v.
More informationNOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: R. v. Simpson, 2018 NSCA 25. v. Her Majesty the Queen. Restriction on Publication: of the Criminal Code
NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: R. v. Simpson, 2018 NSCA 25 Date: 20180316 Docket: CAC 463697 Registry: Halifax Between: Paul Wayne Simpson Appellent v. Her Majesty the Queen Respondent Restriction
More informationWithout Prejudice Communications
Without Prejudice Communications John Dickinson, St John s Chambers Published on 18th September, 2012 An update on which communications will be caught by the 'without prejudice' rule, the uncertain boundaries
More informationLarry Nicholas Estabrooks, Director of Consumer Affairs,
Citation : Estabrooks v. New Brunswick (Director of Consumer Affairs), 2016 NBFCST 11 PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK FINANCIAL AND CONSUMER SERVICES TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS ACT, S.N.B.
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Colpitts, 2017 NSSC 22. Robert Blois Colpitts. Her Majesty the Queen MID-TRIAL RULING TRIAL MANAGEMENT
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Colpitts, 2017 NSSC 22 Date: 20170124 Docket: CRH 346068 Registry: Halifax Between: Robert Blois Colpitts v. Her Majesty the Queen MID-TRIAL RULING TRIAL MANAGEMENT
More informationCourt File No: SIGS SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND (GENERAL SECTION) KEVIN J. ARSENAULT
Court File No: SIGS27017. BETWEEN: and SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND (GENERAL SECTION) KEVIN J. ARSENAULT THE GOVERNMENT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND, as represented by the MINISTER OF HEALTH AND WELLNESS
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Wamboldt Estate v. Wamboldt, 2017 NSSC 288
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Wamboldt Estate v. Wamboldt, 2017 NSSC 288 Date: 20171107 Docket: Bwt No. 459126 Registry: Bridgewater Between: Michael Dockrill, in his capacity as the executor
More informationPRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW SUMMARY 2011
PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW SUMMARY 2011 LAWSKOOL CANADA CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION TO PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW... 5 1.1 WHAT IS PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW?... 5 1.2 TERRITORIAL DIMENSIONS OF PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL
More informationIn the Court of Appeal of Alberta
In the Court of Appeal of Alberta Citation: Bahcheli v. Yorkton Securities Inc., 2012 ABCA 166 Date: 20120531 Docket: 1101-0136-AC Registry: Calgary Between: Tumer Salih Bahcheli Appellant (Plaintiff)
More informationOrder F18-25 MINISTRY OF ADVANCED EDUCATION, SKILLS & TRAINING. Chelsea Lott Adjudicator. July 9, 2018
Order F18-25 MINISTRY OF ADVANCED EDUCATION, SKILLS & TRAINING Chelsea Lott Adjudicator July 9, 2018 CanLII Cite: 2018 BCIPC 28 Quicklaw Cite: [2018] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 28 Summary: Order F16-24 authorized
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Langille v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General), 2016 NSSC 298
Between: SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Langille v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General), 2016 NSSC 298 Eric Langille and Maritime Financial Services Incorporated, a body corporate v. Date: 2016 12 02
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION
Date: 19991027 Docket: GSC-16149 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION BETWEEN: JOHN ROBERT GALLANT PLAINTIFF AND: STEPHEN ARTHUR PICCOTT, WALTER
More informationA View From the Bench Administrative Law
A View From the Bench Administrative Law Justice David Farrar Nova Scotia Court of Appeal With the Assistance of James Charlton, Law Clerk Nova Scotia Court of Appeal Court of Appeal for Ontario: Mavi
More informationREPORT FI-04-30(M) PART XX OF THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT ACT - FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY. Darce Fardy
REPORT FI-04-30(M) PART XX OF THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT ACT - FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY A REQUEST FOR REVIEW of a decision of the HALIFAX REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY to deny access to parts
More informationNOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: R. v. Spencer, 2015 NSCA 108. Debra Jane Spencer. v. Her Majesty The Queen
NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: R. v. Spencer, 2015 NSCA 108 Date: 20151202 Docket: CAC 444045 Registry: Halifax Between: Judge: Motion Heard: Debra Jane Spencer v. Her Majesty The Queen MacDonald,
More informationCitation: Polar Foods v. Jensen Date: PESCTD 63 Docket: S-1-GS Registry: Charlottetown
Citation: Polar Foods v. Jensen Date: 20020924 2002 PESCTD 63 Docket: S-1-GS-18910 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION BETWEEN: POLAR FOODS INTERNATIONAL
More informationElements of a Civil Claim
Elements of a Civil Claim This presentation provides an overview of the elements of a civil claim, with particular reference to construction claims, and looks at each dispute resolution option in the context
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Livingston v. Cabot Links, 2018 NSSC 140. v. Cabot Links Enterprises ULC
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Livingston v. Cabot Links, 2018 NSSC 140 Date: 20180118 Docket: Hfx. No. 465452 Registry: Halifax Between: Neal Brian Livingston v. Cabot Links Enterprises ULC Applicant
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Amirault v. Nova Scotia Association of Health Organizations Long Term Disability Plan, 2016 NSSC 293
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Amirault v. Nova Scotia Association of Health Organizations Long Term Disability Plan, 2016 NSSC 293 Date: 20161102 Docket: Dig No. 439345 Registry: Digby Between:
More informationAhmad Al-Naimi (t/a Buildmaster Construction Services) v. Islamic Press Agency Inc [2000] APP.L.R. 01/28
CA on Appeal from High Court of Justice TCC (HHJ Bowsher QC) before Waller LJ; Chadwick LJ. 28 th January 2000. JUDGMENT : Lord Justice Waller: 1. This is an appeal from the decision of His Honour Judge
More informationBefore : MR JUSTICE KNOWLES CBE Between : (1) C1 (2) C2 (3) C3. - and
Neutral Citation Number: [2016] EWHC 1893 (Comm) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION COMMERCIAL COURT Case No: CL-2015-000762 Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 29/07/2016
More informationCOURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA
Date: 20181121 Docket: CI 16-01-04438 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: Shirritt-Beaumont v. Frontier School Division Cited as: 2018 MBQB 177 COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA BETWEEN: ) APPEARANCES: ) RAYMOND
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA
Citation: Stadler v Director, St Boniface/ Date: 20181010 St Vital, 2018 MBCA 103 Docket: AI18-30-09081 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA B ETWEEN : K. A. Burwash for the Applicant A. J. Ladyka MARTIN
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Gosselin v. Shepherd, 2010 BCSC 755 April Gosselin Date: 20100527 Docket: S104306 Registry: New Westminster Plaintiff Mark Shepherd and Dr.
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Lymburner v. Nova Scotia (Health and Wellness) 2016 NSSC 23
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Lymburner v. Nova Scotia (Health and Wellness) 2016 NSSC 23 Date: 20160118 Docket: Hfx No. 435272 Registry: Halifax Between: Dr. Dana Lymburner v. Applicant Her Majesty
More informationNOVA SCOTIA BARRISTERS SOCIETY HEARING PANEL Citation: Nova Scotia Barristers Society v. Savoie, 2005 NSBS 6
NOVA SCOTIA BARRISTERS SOCIETY HEARING PANEL Citation: Nova Scotia Barristers Society v. Savoie, 2005 NSBS 6 Date: 20051216 Docket: S.H. No. 260151 Registry: Halifax The CANADA EVIDENCE ACT - and - The
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Atlantic Jewish Foundation v. Leventhal Estate, 2019 NSSC 30
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Atlantic Jewish Foundation v. Leventhal Estate, 2019 NSSC 30 Date: 20190124 Docket: Hfx No. 470775 (H-63083) Registry: Halifax Between: Atlantic Jewish Foundation
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA. LeBel J.
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: R. v. Graveline, 2006 SCC 16 [2006] S.C.J. No. 16 DATE: 20060427 DOCKET: 31020 BETWEEN: Rita Graveline Appellant and Her Majesty The Queen Respondent OFFICIAL ENGLISH
More information