PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION (SMALL CLAIMS SECTION) MRSB CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS
|
|
- Ashley Mills
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION (SMALL CLAIMS SECTION) Citation: MRSB v. Cardinal & Ors PESCTD 16 Date: Docket: S1-SC Registry: Charlottetown BETWEEN: AND: MRSB CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS (PLAINTIFF) CARDINAL PACKAGING LIMITED, CARDINAL MANUFACTURING INC. DENNIS ARSENAULT, PAUL LEBLANC, WAYNE LINKLETTER AND KEVIN GALLANT (DEFENDANTS) Appearances: BEFORE: The Honourable Justice Benjamin B. Taylor Robert I. S. MacGregor, solicitor for the plaintiff Stephen D.G. McKnight, Q.C., solicitor for the defendants Cardinal Manufacturing Inc., Wayne Linkletter and Kevin Gallant Place and Date of Hearing Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island February 17, 2006 Place and Date of Decision Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island March 27, 2006
2 Citation: MRSB v. Cardinal & Ors PESCTD 16 S1-SC BETWEEN: MRSB CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS (PLAINTIFF) AND: CARDINAL PACKAGING LIMITED, CARDINAL MANUFACTURING INC. DENNIS ARSENAULT, PAUL LEBLANC, WAYNE LINKLETTER AND KEVIN GALLANT Prince Edward Island Supreme Court - Trial Division (Small Claims Section) Before: Taylor J. Date Heard: February 17, 2006 Date of Decision: March 27, 2006 [8 Pages] CIVIL PROCEDURE - Costs - Small Claims Award of costs to penalize unreasonable behaviour discretion under Supreme Court Act re costs. (DEFENDANTS) Cases Considered: Twaits v. Monk, [2000] O.J. No (C.A.); Corfax Benefit Systems Ltd. v. Fiducie Desjardines Inc., [1997] 37 O.R. (3d) 50 (Gen. Div.); Bargman v. Rooney, [1998] O.J. No (Gen. Div.); Goulin v. Goulin (1995), 26 O.R. (3d) 472 (Gen. Div.); Capital City Shopping Centre Ltd. v Ontario Inc., [2000] O.J. No (S.C.J.); Murano v. Bank of Montreal, [1995] O.J. No (Gen. Div.); Lawyers Professional Indemnity Co. v. Geto Investments Ltd., [2001] O.J. No (Ont. S.C.J.); Mele v. Thorne Riddell (1997), 32 O.R. (3d) 674 (Ont. Ct. Gen. Div.); Goulin v. Goulin (1995), 26 O.R. (3d) 472 (Ont. Ct. Gen. Div.); Molnar (c.o.b. Molnar Painting and Decorating) v. Langille, [2003] O.J. No. 846 (Sm. Cl. Ct.); Biggins v. Boran et al., [2005] O.J. No (Sm. Cl. Ct.); Jones v. LTL Contracting Ltd. et al., [1995] O.J. No (Sm. Cl. Ct.), affirmed [1995] O.J. No (Gen. Div.); Kakamin v. Hasan, [2005] O.J. No (Sm. Cl. Ct.); Om v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [1999] B.C.J. No (Sm. Cl. Ct.); Anton, Campion, MacDonald & Phillips v. Rowat, [1996] Y.J. No. 130 (Sm. Cl. Ct.); Newfoundland Association of Public Employees v. Drake, [1996] N.J. No. 170 (Sm. Cl. Ct.); Ron Robinson Ltd. v. Canadian Indemnity Co. (1984), 45 O.R. (2d) 124 (Div.
3 ii - Court); Santesso Bros. Iron Works Ltd. v. Forte Construction Corp., [1999] O.J. No (Sm. Cl. Ct.) Statutes Referred to: Supreme Court Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, Cap. S-10, s. 53; Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. c. C.43, s. 29 Rules Considered: Rules of Court, Province of Prince Edward Island 1996, Rule 57, 19.02, 1.02(1). Robert I. S. MacGregor, solicitor for the plaintiff Stephen D.G. McKnight, Q.C., solicitor for the defendants Cardinal Manufacturing Inc., Wayne Linkletter and Kevin Gallant
4 Taylor J.: [1] This is a motion by the defendants Cardinal Manufacturing Inc., Wayne Linkletter and Kevin Gallant for costs against the plaintiff on a full indemnity basis following the plaintiff s discontinuance of the action, and for an order fixing the amount of costs. For the reasons set out below, I award these three defendants their costs of this action and this motion on a substantial indemnity basis. PART ONE Background [2] The plaintiff accounting firm brought a small claims action in January 2004 against the six defendants for recovery of fees owing for accounting work done for the defendant Cardinal Packaging Limited while Cardinal Packaging Limited was on the verge of insolvency in The actual fees were $8,729.72, but the plaintiff decreased the amount to $8,000 so as to come within the small claims limit. Eventually, Cardinal Packaging Limited did become insolvent and after actions by creditors, many of its assets ended up in the hands of Cardinal Manufacturing Inc. In its claim, the plaintiff stated, Cardinal Packaging Limited underwent a corporate reorganization wherein its assets were transferred to Cardinal Manufacturing Inc. while preserving its liabilities...to defeat Cardinal Packaging Limited s creditors. The plaintiff claimed Cardinal Manufacturing Inc. benefited from the plaintiff s work by fraudulently receiving assets of Cardinal Packaging Limited, including investments obtained by the plaintiff for Cardinal Packaging Limited, while the other four defendants, who were directors of one or both corporate defendants at one time or another, acted fraudulently, deceitfully, and in bad faith with the intention of defeating the creditors of Cardinal Packaging Limited. In fact, though, the asset transfer to Cardinal Packaging Limited had been an arms length sale for good consideration by a principal creditor of Cardinal Packaging Limited, and the plaintiff had no grounds whatsoever to claim against Cardinal Manufacturing Inc., Linkletter and Gallant. [3] Cardinal Packaging Limited, Dennis Arsenault and Paul Leblanc either were not served or did not defend, and the plaintiff did not take judgment against them. Wayne Linkletter, Kevin Gallant and Cardinal Manufacturing Inc. filed statements of defence and were all represented by the same counsel. (In this decision, any reference hereunder to defendants means Linkletter, Gallant and Cardinal Manufacturing Inc., not Arsenault, Leblanc or Cardinal Packaging Limited.) When these three defendants mounted a vigorous defence, the plaintiff essentially stopped prosecuting the action but did not discontinue against the defendants. The defendants forced the matter towards trial; it was scheduled for trial on January 7, 2005, but adjourned at the last minute at the request of the plaintiff. On November
5 Page: 2 21, 2005, following a pre-trial conference, the plaintiff discontinued the action in its entirety and Jenkins J. gave an order granting the plaintiff leave to discontinue, subject to the right of the defendants to seek costs. [4] In this motion, the defendants assert the plaintiff should pay their full costs of defending the action. The defendants claim the sum of $25, for legal fees and taxes, plus $ for disbursements, for a total of $25, PART TWO Outline of Issues 1. Can the Small Claims Section of the Trial Division of the Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island award costs on a substantial indemnity or partial indemnity basis, and if so, what type of costs should be awarded in this case? 2. Quantum of costs awarded. PART THREE - Analysis Issue One - Can the Small Claims Section of the Trial Division of the Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island award costs on a substantial indemnity or partial indemnity basis, and if so, what type of costs should be awarded in this case? [5] The Court s power to award costs is governed by s. 53 of the Supreme Court Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, Cap. S-10, which states in part: 53. (1) Subject to the express provisions of any statute, the costs of and incidental to all proceedings authorized to be taken in court or before a judge are in the discretion of the court or judge, and the court or judge has full power to determine by whom and by what extent the costs shall be paid. [6] Rule 57 of the Rules of Court, Province of Prince Edward Island 1996, provides some factors the Court may consider in awarding costs, but s-s (4) states: (4) Nothing in this rule or Rules to affects the authority of the court under section 53 of the Supreme Court Act...
6 Page: 3 (c) to award all or part of the costs on a substantial indemnity basis; (d) to award costs in an amount that represents full indemnity. [7] Although s (4)(d) refers to full indemnity, our courts award costs on either a partial indemnity or a substantial indemnity basis, replacing the traditional party and party or solicitor-client basis. In practise, substantial indemnity is intended to represent full costs, at least according to the scale deemed appropriate. [8] Our Small Claims Rule contains different costs provisions. Rule of the Small Claims Rule states: Limit An award of costs in the Small Claims Section, other than disbursements, shall not exceed 15 percent of the amount claimed or of the value of the property sought to be recovered unless the court considers it necessary in the interests of justice to penalize a party, counsel or agent for unreasonable behaviour in the proceeding. [9] Ontario has a similar provision to our Rule 19.02, but it is contained in the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. c. C.43 at s. 29. A provision in a statute prevails over a Rule of Court. Section 29 of the Ontario Courts of Justice Act dictates the limits of small claims costs in that province, but although our Small Claims Rule has the same wording as Ontario s s. 29, our Rule does not override s. 53(1) of our Supreme Court Act. Notwithstanding the use of shall, Small Claims Rule is just a factor to be considered by the Court; it does not reduce or otherwise affect the authority of the Court under s. 53(1) of the Supreme Court Act. Costs awarded to sanction misconduct [10] Trial or Appeal Division courts may award substantial indemnity costs in an appropriate case. Other than cases dealing with settlement offers, the circumstances giving rise to such an award are exceptional, and generally have to do with unacceptable conduct by a party. It is unacceptable for plaintiffs to make totally unsupported allegations of fraud or deceit against defendants. Courts award substantial indemnity costs against such plaintiffs to punish the plaintiffs reprehensible conduct in making the allegations, discourage other plaintiffs from making false and harmful assertions about a defendant s character, and compensate the defendants for the expense incurred in answering the baseless attack on the defendants integrity (Twaits v. Monk, [2000] O.J. No (C.A.) at paragraphs two
7 Page: 4 to five; Corfax Benefit Systems Ltd. v. Fiducie Desjardines Inc., [1997] 37 O.R. (3d) 50 (Gen. Div.), page 10 of 10; Bargman v. Rooney, [1998] O.J. No (Gen. Div.) at paragraphs 15 to 19 and paragraph 33; Goulin v. Goulin (1995), 26 O.R. (3d) 472 (Gen. Div.) at pages 475 to 476; Capital City Shopping Centre Ltd. v Ontario Inc., [2000] O.J. No (S.C.J.) at paragraphs five to seven; Murano v. Bank of Montreal, [1995] O.J. No (Gen. Div.). [11] As with all cost factors, there are areas of grey: the clearer the allegation of fraud, and the more blatant and obvious the plaintiff s inability to prove fraud, the more certain an award of substantial indemnity costs (Twaits v. Monk). In this case, both the allegation of fraud and the complete lack of proof or foundation for the allegation could not be clearer. The plaintiff offers no shred of evidence, and no suggestion why the allegation was made. [12] Costs sanctions against asserting fraud may apply to actions discontinued prior to trial (Lawyers Professional Indemnity Co. v. Geto Investments Ltd., [2001] O.J. No (Ont. S.C.J.) at paragraph 27; Mele v. Thorne Riddell (1997), 32 O.R. (3d) 674 (Ont. Ct. Gen. Div.) at page 678; Goulin v. Goulin (1995), 26 O.R. (3d) 472 (Ont. Ct. Gen. Div.) at paragraphs 475 to 476). In Mele v. Thorne Riddell, Dambrot J. stated at page 678:...a significant part of the harm caused by unfounded allegations of wrongdoing by a plaintiff is the harm done to the reputation of the defendant. As long as the allegation remains part of the public record, that harm continues. Finally, on this point, if the plaintiffs knew some time ago that no foundation for these allegations existed, then it seems to me that they compounded the harm caused by their recklessness by leaving the allegations publicly uncorrected. [13] Although the present case neither went to trial nor attracted media attention, the defendants have advanced uncontradicted evidence they suffered harm to their reputation and possibly financial harm, since the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency somehow learned of the publicly filed allegations and declined to do business with certain of the defendants until the allegations were cleared up. Costs sanctions in Small Claims Court [14] A small claims court may consider it necessary in the interests of justice to penalize a party, counsel or agent for unreasonable behaviour in the proceedings. Illustrations of unreasonable behaviour are: 1) False and hurtful allegations, in particular: a) a bizarre and ridiculous claim by the plaintiff containing false and vicious allegations the defendant was dishonest and had committed a
8 Page: 5 fraud (Molnar (c.o.b. Molnar Painting and Decorating) v. Langille, [2003] O.J. No. 846 (Sm. Cl. Ct.); at paragraphs 25, 36 and 34 b) in a claim the plaintiff brought...to punish and make life unpleasant for his enemies rather than to obtain compensation for a wrong, the plaintiff falsely alleged criminal misappropriation against one defendant (Biggins v. Boran et al., [2005] O.J. No (Sm. Cl. Ct.) at paragraph 20); 2) Failure to accept a reasonable offer (Jones v. LTL Contracting Ltd. et al., [1995] O.J. No (Sm. Cl. Ct.), affirmed [1995] O.J. No (Gen. Div.); Kakamin v. Hasan, [2005] O.J. No (Sm. Cl. Ct.) at paragraph 10). [15] Failure to accept an offer as good as or better than the court award commonly triggers cost consequences in general division trials, and in general division trials it does not matter whether the failure to accept the offer was reasonable or unreasonable; the retrospective recognition the offer should have been accepted is all that is necessary. In order to trigger costs in small claims court under Rule 19.02, however, it appears the offer must be both one that in hindsight should have been accepted, and also an offer which was so obviously a good offer at the time it was made, it was unreasonable behaviour not to take it. Conclusion re defendants right to costs [16] The plaintiff accused the defendants of fraud, deceit and acting in bad faith. The plaintiff has not offered any evidence to support these accusations, and I find the plaintiff s allegations were utterly false. This was only a small claims action, but by impugning the character of the defendants, the plaintiff put a lot more in play than $8,000. [17] The plaintiff asserts there was no unreasonable behaviour by the plaintiff from the time the action was started until it was discontinued. In Biggins v. Boran, at paragraph nine, Searle D.J. interpreted the phrase in the proceeding, in unreasonable behaviour in the proceeding, to include the commencement of a proceeding. I agree with this interpretation. [18] I find it necessary to penalize the plaintiff for unreasonable behaviour in the proceeding. The unreasonable behaviour consisted of 1) making baseless allegations of fraud, deceit, and bad faith about the defendants which damaged their reputations; and 2) maintaining these allegations by leaving them in the public record from January 2004 until November 2005, long after the plaintiff had to know there was no foundation for the allegations. As discussed below, the penalty for unreasonable behaviour may take the following forms: 1) costs to penalize the plaintiff for unreasonable behaviour in the proceeding; or 2) substantial indemnity costs pursuant
9 Page: 6 to s. 53 of the Supreme Court Act; or 3) some of both. Issue Two - Quantum of costs awarded [19] A plaintiff who makes an unwarranted allegation of fraud in a Supreme Court Trial Division claim risks having to pay substantial indemnity costs. In the Small Claims section, the policy is to keep costs awards to a minimum so as not to bar impecunious litigants from coming to court, but Small Claims Rule and the general discretion of the court under s. 53 of the Supreme Court Act allow the court to award more than usual costs in exceptional cases. [20] I believe the quantum of costs which would serve to penalize the plaintiff for its unreasonable behaviour would be in the neighbourhood of $8,000. Such an amount would serve as a significant financial penalty for bringing a claim for $8,000 based on allegations which were both false and hurtful, and would also serve as a cautionary tale to discourage other plaintiffs from making like allegations. However, an award of $8,000 costs would not compensate the defendants for the costs they reasonably incurred, and I believe the award in this case related to those costs. [21] I can find no authority ruling costs under Rule of the Small Costs Rules may be used both to award costs which penalize the plaintiff, and also an additional amount so as to arrive at a total which compensates the defendants for their actual costs. Such an interpretation appears possible, but an alternative route in this province would be under s. 53 of the Supreme Court Act. [22] Accordingly, under s. 53 of the Supreme Court Act, I turn to consideration of what costs would be reasonable in this case. The $25, claimed by the defendants is a very large figure for a case with no discoveries, no motions other than this costs motion, and no trial. Too large, I would say. By comparison, although a number of the small claims cases referred to above involved trials of more than a day or two in length, and defendants represented by counsel, none resulted in awards on the scale requested by the defendants. The highest costs were in Jones v. LTL Contracting, where the decision followed a trial of several days involving a number of experts. One defendant received $6,715.13, another received $11, [23] The defendants submit this was an extremely complex proceeding requiring much detailed analysis. In my view, the straightforwardness and simplicity of the defence are what make the plaintiff s conduct so unreasonable. As I understand it, defence counsel laid out the defence in a telephone call to plaintiff s counsel at the outset, and asserts the call should have persuaded the plaintiff to discontinue forthwith. If so, the defence cannot have been so very complicated. On the other
10 Page: 7 hand, if the case was extremely complex, so that it was difficult to show the defendants did not act fraudulently, the complexity of the case would argue against a finding of unreasonable behaviour by the plaintiff. [24] The plaintiff asserts it made an offer to the defendants which would have resolved the matter, and this offer should be taken into account. The plaintiff offered to discontinue the action, apologize to the defendants and pay a small amount for costs in full settlement. The defendants did not accept, and the plaintiff has not apologized. This offer does not affect costs: the offer was not as good as or better than the results the defendants will achieve from this motion, namely, increased costs of the action, discontinuance of the action and, instead of the apology the plaintiff used as a bargaining chip, a statement by the court the plaintiff s claim was baseless. [25] At the hearing of this motion, I asked why the defendants did not bring a summary judgment motion. Defendants counsel said he was not sure he could. Some small claims courts allow summary judgment motions (see Om v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [1999] B.C.J. No (Sm. Cl. Ct.); Anton, Campion, MacDonald & Phillips v. Rowat, [1996] Y.J. No. 130 (Sm. Cl. Ct.); Newfoundland Association of Public Employees v. Drake, [1996] N.J. No. 170 (Sm. Cl. Ct.). The summary judgment procedure may not be available in our Small Claims Court. Rule 1.02(1) of the Rules of Court states...only Rule 74 applies to proceedings in the Small Claims Section of the Trial Division. The Rule 74 rules contain no provision for a summary judgment motion, and I expect this is because the Small Claims Court Rules were themselves intended to provide for...the summary disposition after a trial of small claims, with a minimum of pre-trial proceedings. Ron Robinson Ltd. v. Canadian Indemnity Co. (1984), 45 O.R. (2d) 124 (Div. Court); Santesso Bros. Iron Works Ltd. v. Forte Construction Corp., [1999] O.J. No (Sm. Cl. Ct.). Nevertheless, other Rules of Court procedures not set out in Rule 74 have been used in our Small Claims Court. Given the defendants costs and concerns in this case, a summary judgment motion might have been a good idea: even if the Court ultimately ruled the summary judgment procedure was not available in our Small Claims Court, the motion could have brought the litigation to a head much sooner. However, I will not penalize the defendants for failure to bring a motion when the viability of the motion has not been determined in this Court. [26] Taxing costs requires consideration of the particulars of the costs and any conduct by the defendants which may have complicated or lengthened the proceedings. I note the defendants filed three statements of defence when one would have done, and likewise, three pre-trial conference memoranda. I note almost $7,000 in fees were charged before the defences were filed, and some, perhaps a lot, of this time was spent exploring the possibility of a defamation action against the defendant.
11 Page: 8 [27] The costs claimed by the defendants should be reduced to reflect these unnecessary actions before substantial indemnity costs are awarded based on the remainder. Conclusion [28] This was a significant case for the defendants, they were represented by competent counsel, and they were completely successful. On the other hand, I conclude the quantum of costs incurred by the defendants in this case is the result of an excess of caution, and beyond what would be reasonable for the defence as I understand it. I believe $15,000 would be the upper limit for substantial indemnity costs in a case such as this. Accordingly, I award the defendants Cardinal Manufacturing Inc., Wayne Linkletter, and Kevin Gallant costs of this motion and action on a substantial indemnity basis, which I fix at $15,000 plus taxes of $2,655, plus disbursements of $328.97, for a total of $17, March 27, 2006 J.
SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Senechal v MacPhee 2010 PESC 11 Date: 20100224 Docket: S1 GS- 22179 Registry: Charlottetown Between: Frank and Caron Senechal of the Cambridge Road Kings County, Province
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION
Citation: Society of Lloyd s v. McNeill Date: 20030924 2003 PESCTD 76 Docket: S-1-GS-19948 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION In the Matter of
More informationSUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND. Citation: Widelitz v. Cox & Palmer 2010 PESC 43 Date: Docket: S1-GS Registry: Charlottetown
SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Citation: Widelitz v. Cox & Palmer 2010 PESC 43 Date: 20101022 Docket: S1-GS-23705 Registry: Charlottetown Between: Kenneth Widelitz Plaintiff And: Cox & Palmer Defendant
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION. DERRELL COLLINGS and GERTRUDE COLLINGS
Citation: Collings v PEI Mutual Insurance Co. Date: 20031223 2003 PESCTD 104 Docket: GSC-17965 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION BETWEEN: DERRELL
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION
Citation: Society of Lloyd s v. McNeill Date: 20031107 2003 PESCTD 88 Docket: S-1-GS-19948 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION In the Matter of
More informationPage 2 [2] The action arose from a motor vehicle accident on October 9, The plaintiff Anthony Okafor claimed two million dollars and the plainti
CITATION: OKAFOR v. MARKEL INSURANCE & KROPKA, 2010 ONSC 2093 COURT FILE NO.: C42087/97 DATE: 2010-06-01 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: JUNE OKAFOR AND ANTHONY OKAFOR Plaintiffs - and
More informationPage: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND COURT OF APPEAL
Page: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND COURT OF APPEAL Citation: E.R.I. Engine v. MacEachern 2011 PECA 2 Date: 20110107 Docket: S1-CA-1195 Registry: Charlottetown BETWEEN: STEVEN
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION. Against. Gerard Joseph MacDonald
PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION Citation: R v. MacDonald 2007 PESCTD 29 Date: 20070820 Docket: S1 GC-556 Registry: Charlottetown Between Her Majesty the Queen Against
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION. Donald Dover and Evelyn Dover
Citation: Dover v. Gov of PEI et ors. Date: 20031229 2003 PESCTD 106 Docket: GSC-16511 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION Between: Donald Dover
More informationCitation: Powell Estate Date: PESCTD 81 Docket: ES-1339(P) & ES-1342(P) Registry: Charlottetown
Citation: Powell Estate Date: 20021202 2002 PESCTD 81 Docket: ES-1339(P) & ES-1342(P) Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION IN THE MATTER of the
More informationSUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Citation: PEI Protestant Children s Trust and Province of PEI and S. Marshall 2014 PESC 6 Date:20140225 Docket: S1-GS-20889 Registry: Charlottetown Between: And: And:
More informationCase Name: Laudon v. Roberts. Between Rick Laudon, Plaintiff, and Will Roberts and Keith Sullivan, Defendants. [2010] O.J. No.
Page 1 Case Name: Laudon v. Roberts Between Rick Laudon, Plaintiff, and Will Roberts and Keith Sullivan, Defendants [2010] O.J. No. 315 2010 ONSC 433 Court File No. 02-B5188 Counsel: B. Keating, for the
More informationPage: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - APPEAL DIVISION
Page: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - APPEAL DIVISION Citation: Ayangma v. The Attorney General (P.E.I.) 2004 PESCAD 11 Date: 20040623 Docket: S1-AD-1006 Registry: Charlottetown
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION LAW SOCIETY OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
Date: 19980514 Docket: GSC-16464 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION BETWEEN: LAW SOCIETY OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND APPLICANT AND: PAULA M. MacKINNON
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION. Thomas Walker. Certified General Accountants of Prince Edward Island
PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION Citation: Walker v. CGAs of PEI & Ano. 2005 PESCTD 49 Date: 20050930 Docket: S1-GS-20476 Registry: Charlottetown Between: And: Thomas
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 informationSUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND. Citation: Lank v. Government of PEI 2010 PESC 09 Date: Docket: S1-GS Registry: Charlottetown
SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Citation: Lank v. Government of PEI 2010 PESC 09 Date: 20100218 Docket: S1-GS-16828 Registry: Charlottetown Between: Stephen Lank and Stephen Lank Enterprises Inc.
More informationCitation: Action Press v. PEITF Date: PESCTD 02 Docket: GSC Registry: Charlottetown
Citation: Action Press v. PEITF Date: 20020114 2002 PESCTD 02 Docket: GSC-18145 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION BETWEEN: AND: CARRUTHERS ENTERPRISES
More informationCitation: Gallant v. Piccott Date: PESCAD 17 Docket: AD-0859 Registry: Charlottetown
Citation: Gallant v. Piccott Date: 20000518 2000 PESCAD 17 Docket: AD-0859 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - APPEAL DIVISION BETWEEN: STEPHEN ARTHUR PICCOTT,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND. Between: Gabriel Elbaz, Sogelco International Inc. and Summerside Seafood Supreme Inc.
SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Citation: Summerside Seafood v. Gov PEI 2012 PESC 4 Date: January 30, 2012 Docket: S1-GS-20942 Registry: Charlottetown Between: Gabriel Elbaz, Sogelco International
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 informationCitation: Duffy Const. v. Dennis Const Date: PESCTD 95 Docket: GSC Registry: Charlottetown
Citation: Duffy Const. v. Dennis Const Date: 20001205 2000 PESCTD 95 Docket: GSC-17689 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION BETWEEN: AND: DUFFY
More informationCosts in Small Claims Court. By: W. Patrick Sloan, B.A. LL.B. Ferguson Barristers LLP
Costs in Small Claims Court By: W. Patrick Sloan, B.A. LL.B. Ferguson Barristers LLP Introduction The small claims court is intended to allow quicker and more cost efficient access to justice. Coupled
More informationPrince Edward Island. Small Claims Section Actions Where the Debt or Damages Claimed Do Not Exceed $16,000.
Prince Edward Island Small Claims Section Actions Where the Debt or Damages Claimed Do Not Exceed $16,000. RULES OF COURT Rule 74 Executive Council by Order-in-Council No. EC2017-387 raised the Small Claims
More informationGLAHOLT LLP CONSTRUCTION LAWYERS
Choosing Arbitration Arbitration of construction industry disputes is: Based on contract. The power of an arbitrator, or arbitration panel, to decide your dispute must be granted to the arbitrator by the
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs ) Defendant ) DECISION ON COSTS
BROCKVILLE COURT FILE NO.: 05-0083 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: DUSKA BARKLEY, PEYTON BARKLEY, Jonathan A. Schwartzman, for the Plaintiffs MARATHA BARKLEY, by their Litigation Guardian,
More informationCOURT FILE NO.: 00-CV
COURT FILE NO.: 00-CV-189420 DATE: 2006-07-18 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: Nathan Anthony Resch, Robert Higham, Ashley Higham, Ashley Crayden, Shannon Crayden, minors under the age of 18 years
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION LOUISE PARKER
Date: 19971222 Docket: GSC-15236 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION BETWEEN: LOUISE PARKER PLAINTIFF AND: LEDWELL, LARTER and DRISCOLL and DAVID
More informationCitation: Jenkins v. HRC & ors. Date: PESCTD 34 Docket: S-1-GS Registry: Charlottetown
Citation: Jenkins v. HRC & ors. Date: 20030404 2003 PESCTD 34 Docket: S-1-GS-19359 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISL IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION BETWEEN Ronald Jenkins The
More informationRULE 58 ASSESSMENT OF COSTS
RULE 58 ASSESSMENT OF COSTS GENERAL 58.01 Where a rule or order provides that a party is entitled to the costs of all or part of a proceeding and the costs have not been fixed by the court, they shall
More informationRECENT STATEMENTS BY THE COURTS OF ONTARIO ON THE LAW OF COSTS. by Roseanna R. Ansell-Vaughan
RECENT STATEMENTS BY THE COURTS OF ONTARIO ON THE LAW OF COSTS by Roseanna R. Ansell-Vaughan In the last year, the Courts of Ontario have delivered a cluster of decisions on costs that speak to various
More informationFORM F4 REGISTRATION OF INDIVIDUALS AND REVIEW OF PERMITTED INDIVIDUALS (section 2.2)
FORM 33-109F4 REGISTRATION OF INDIVIDUALS AND REVIEW OF PERMITTED INDIVIDUALS (section 2.2) GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS Complete and submit this form to the relevant regulator(s) or in Québec, the securities
More informationCitation: R. v. R.C. (P.) Date: PESCTD 22 Docket: GSC Registry: Charlottetown
Citation: R. v. R.C. (P.) Date: 2000308 2000 PESCTD 22 Docket: GSC-17475 Registry: Charlottetown BETWEEN: AND: PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
More informationCROWN PROCEEDINGS ACT
c t CROWN PROCEEDINGS ACT PLEASE NOTE This document, prepared by the Legislative Counsel Office, is an office consolidation of this Act, current to December 20, 2017. It is intended for information and
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION
Citation: Simmonds & Ors. v. Gov PEI & Ors. 2006 PESCTD 09 Date: 20060127 Docket: GSC-15443 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION BETWEEN: AND:
More informationThe Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2013
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS 2013 No. 262 (L. 1) SENIOR COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES COUNTY COURTS, ENGLAND AND WALES The Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2013 Made - - - - 31st January 2013 Laid before Parliament
More informationRECIPROCAL ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS ACT
c t RECIPROCAL ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS ACT PLEASE NOTE This document, prepared by the Legislative Counsel Office, is an office consolidation of this Act, current to November 1, 2003. It is intended for
More informationPage: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND COURT OF APPEAL. JOHN McGOWAN and CAROLYN McGOWAN THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA
Page: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND COURT OF APPEAL Citation: McGowan v. Bank of Nova Scotia 2011 PECA 20 Date: 20111214 Docket: S1-CA-1202 Registry: Charlottetown BETWEEN: AND:
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 informationIntroductory Guide to Civil Litigation in Ontario
Introductory Guide to Civil Litigation in Ontario Table of Contents INTRODUCTION This guide contains an overview of the Canadian legal system and court structure as well as key procedural and substantive
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 informationPage: 2 Manufacturing Inc. referred to as ( Stork Craft has brought a motion to enforce the alleged settlement agreement between counsel to discontinu
CITATION: Duong v. Stork Craft Manufacturing Inc., 2011 ONSC 2534 COURT FILE NO.: CV-09-46962CP DATE: 2011/05/12 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: DAVID DUONG, RINKU SINGH and CHRISTINA WOOF Plaintiffs
More informationTHE REALITY OF TENDERING WHY REAL ESTATE LAWYERS GIVE FUEL FOR LITIGATORS TO SUE THEM
THE REALITY OF TENDERING WHY REAL ESTATE LAWYERS GIVE FUEL FOR LITIGATORS TO SUE THEM Safeguarding the transaction-the old school rules Much has been written about tendering and the hows and whys of doing
More informationCONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE ACT
c t CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE ACT PLEASE NOTE This document, prepared by the Legislative Counsel Office, is an office consolidation of this Act, current to December 2, 2015. It is intended for information
More informationRULE 21 DETERMINATION OF AN ISSUE BEFORE TRIAL WHERE AVAILABLE To any Party on a Question of Law (1) A party may move before a judge, (a) for
RULE 21 DETERMINATION OF AN ISSUE BEFORE TRIAL WHERE AVAILABLE To any Party on a Question of Law 21.01 (1) A party may move before a judge, (a) for the determination, before trial, of a question of law
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION CLAIR PERRY SCOTT GREGORY
Citation: Perry v. Gregory Date: 20030912 2003 PESCTD 73 Docket: S1-SC-24646 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION BETWEEN: CLAIR PERRY AND: PLAINTIFF
More informationIN THE MATTER OF The Securities Act S.N.B. 2004, c. S and - IN THE MATTER OF. STEVEN VINCENT WEERES and REBEKAH DONSZELMANN (RESPONDENTS)
IN THE MATTER OF The Securities Act S.N.B. 2004, c. S-5.5 - and - IN THE MATTER OF STEVEN VINCENT WEERES and REBEKAH DONSZELMANN (RESPONDENTS) REASONS FOR THE DECISION ON SANCTIONS Date of Hearing by Conference
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION. Agrawest Investments Limited and AWI Acquisition Company Limited
PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION Citation: Agrawest & AWI v. BMA Date: 20050623 2005 PESCTD 36 Docket: S1-GS-20488 Registry: Charlottetown Between: And: Agrawest Investments
More informationLegislative Assembly of Prince Edward Island Report of the Indemnities & Allowances Commission
Legislative Assembly of Prince Edward Island 2011 Report of the Indemnities & Allowances Commission Table of Contents I. Legislation and Mandate...3 II. Introduction and Commission Work...4 III. Research...5
More informationTo Seek a Stay or Not to Seek a Stay
To Seek a Stay or Not to Seek a Stay Paul D. Guy and Scott McGrath; WeirFoulds LLP Is seeking a stay of foreign proceedings a prerequisite to obtaining an anti-suit injunction in Canada? An anti-suit injunction
More informationAUCKLAND DISTRICT LAW SOCIETY INC. JAMIE WAUGH- BARRISTER TERMS OF ENGAGEMENT
AUCKLAND DISTRICT LAW SOCIETY INC. JAMIE WAUGH- BARRISTER TERMS OF ENGAGEMENT IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR INSTRUCTING SOLICITORS AND CLIENTS Currently, with limited exceptions, as a barrister I am required
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (COMMERCIAL LIST) BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA. -and-
Court File No. CV-17-11760-00CL ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (COMMERCIAL LIST) BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA -and- Applicant ASTORIA ORGANIC MATTERS LTD. and ASTORIA ORGANIC MATTERS CANADA LP
More informationSUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Citation: Simpson v. Carewco et ors. 2010 PESC 07 Date: 20100202 Docket: S1-GS-22899 Registry: Charlottetown Between: Timothy G. Simpson And: Plaintiff Carewco Holdings
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Bates v. John Bishop Jewellers Limited, 2009 BCSC 158 Errol Bates John Bishop Jewellers Limited Date: 20090212 Docket: S082271 Registry:
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV Applicant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEAL AUCKL REGISTRY CIV-2010-404-007637 IN THE MATTER OF Silverdale Developments Limited (2007) Limited BETWEEN CALLUM MACDONALD Applicant ROYDEN BRETT ALLNUT, DIANE PATRICIA ALLNUT
More informationI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE CIV [2018] NZHC 971. IN THE MATTER of the Companies Act 1993
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE CIV-2016-409-000814 [2018] NZHC 971 IN THE MATTER of the Companies Act 1993 BETWEEN AND THE COMMISSIONER
More informationRULE 60 ENFORCEMENT OF ORDERS
RULE 60 ENFORCEMENT OF ORDERS DEFINITIONS 60.01 In Rules 60.02 to 60.19, (a) "creditor" means a person who is entitled to enforce an order for the payment or recovery of money; (b) "debtor" means a person
More informationRECENT STATEMENTS BY THE COURTS OF ONTARIO ON THE LAW OF COSTS. by Roseanna R. Ansell-Vaughan
RECENT STATEMENTS BY THE COURTS OF ONTARIO ON THE LAW OF COSTS by Roseanna R. Ansell-Vaughan In the last year, the Courts of Ontario have delivered a cluster of decisions on costs that speak to various
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. ) ) ) Defendant ) ) ) ) HEARD: September 24, Proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992
COURT FILE NO.: 07-CV-333934CP DATE: 20091016 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: 405341 ONTARIO LIMITED Plaintiff - and - MIDAS CANADA INC. Defendant Allan Dick, David Sterns and Sam Hall
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Knight v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, 2017 BCSC 1487 Date: 20170823 Docket: L031300 Registry: Vancouver Between: And Kenneth Knight Imperial Tobacco
More informationThe purpose of this book is to outline, at an introductory level, bankruptcy
1 Overview of the Canadian Bankruptcy and Insolvency Regime I. Introduction The purpose of this book is to outline, at an introductory level, bankruptcy and insolvency law in Canada, the various avenues
More informationThe Law Society of British Columbia In the matter of the Legal Profession Act, SBC 1998, c.9 and a hearing concerning AARON MURRAY LESSING.
2012 LSBC 19 Report issued: May 28, 2012 Citations issued: March 23, 2011 and July 28, 2011 The Law Society of British Columbia In the matter of the Legal Profession Act, SBC 1998, c.9 and a hearing concerning
More informationPlaintiffs. Defendants. Petitioner. Designated Person. Respondents. Plaintiffs. Defendants. Plaintiffs. Defendants. Plaintiffs.
Execution Version CLASS ACTION CANADA WIDE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Made as of April 10, 2015 Peters et al. v. Merck Frosst Canada Ltd. et al. Option consommateurs Nicole Brousseau Merck Frosst Canada Limitée
More informationReceivership Orders Where Do We Go From Here?
Receivership Orders Where Do We Go From Here? by Paul Macdonald and Brett Harrison for The Canadian Institute s Advanced Forum on Turnarounds September 27, 2004 Receivership Orders Where Do We Go From
More informationE N D O R S E M E N T (corrected)
COURT FILE NO.: 07-CV-334666PD2 DATE: 20070620 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: State Farm Insurance Company v. v. Jean Brijlal and Roy Brijlal BEFORE: Justice D. Brown COUNSEL: Pamela Pengelley,
More informationTHE LAW SOCIETY OF ALBERTA HEARING COMMITTEE REPORT
THE LAW SOCIETY OF ALBERTA HEARING COMMITTEE REPORT Law Society File No.: HE20110049 IN THE MATTER OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION ACT, R.S.A. 2000, C. L-8 AND IN THE MATTER OF A HEARING REGARDING THE CONDUCT
More informationIN THE MATTER OF THE SECURITIES ACT S.N.B and - IN THE MATTER OF
IN THE MATTER OF THE SECURITIES ACT S.N.B. 2004 - and - IN THE MATTER OF INTERCONTINENTAL TRADING GROUP S.A., RON WALLACE AND GARY MCCORY (RESPONDENTS) Date of Hearing: November 18, 2009 Date of Order:
More informationAffidavits in Support of Motions
Affidavits in Support of Motions To be advised and verily believe or not to be advised and verily believe: That is the question Presented by: Robert Zochodne November 20, 2010 30 th Civil Litigation Updated
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
BETWEEN COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Intact Insurance Company v. Kisel, 2015 ONCA 205 DATE: 20150326 DOCKET: C59338 and C59339 Laskin, Simmons and Watt JJ.A. Intact Insurance Company and Yaroslava
More informationCase Name: Enescu v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co.
Page 1 Case Name: Enescu v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co. Between Cornel Enescu and 1380470 Ontario Inc., and The Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, Maskell Insurance Brokers Ltd. and William Maskell [2005]
More informationProtecting Freedom of Expression in Public Debate: Anti-SLAPP legislation
Protecting Freedom of Expression in Public Debate: Anti-SLAPP legislation by Chris Wullum Tapper Cuddy LLP 1000-330 St. Mary Avenue Winnipeg, Manitoba R3C 3Z5 cwullum@tappercuddy.com Background A strategic
More informationAN OVERVIEW OF EXTRAORDINARY REMEDIES
EXTRAORDINARY REMEDIES IN CIVIL LITIGATION 2 EXTRAORDINARY REMEDIES Extraordinary remedies available in civil proceedings include: Prohibitive, Mandatory and Preventative Injunctions Preservation of and
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. Reasons for Judgment Respecting Costs
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Re: Section 29 of the Court Order Enforcement Act and the Registration of a Foreign Judgment Against John Tolman, Mrs. John Tolman, Bob Alpen and Mrs. Bob Alpen
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN LESLIE CAMERON KING
PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION Citation: R. v. King 2008 PESCTD 18 Date: 20080325 Docket: S1-GC-572 Registry: Charlottetown BETWEEN: AND: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN LESLIE
More informationNEW BRUNSWICK CLASS ACTIONS Chapter C A Plaintiff Perspective. Class Proceedings Act, proclaimed in New Brunswick in June of 2007.
NEW BRUNSWICK CLASS ACTIONS Chapter C-5.15 A Plaintiff Perspective Class Proceedings Act, proclaimed in New Brunswick in June of 2007. General S.2(3) allows a proceeding started under Rule 14, to be continued
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 informationCLASS ACTION NOTICE TO GROUP MEMBERS BANKSIA SECURITIES LIMITED DEBENTURE HOLDERS
CLASS ACTION NOTICE TO GROUP MEMBERS BANKSIA SECURITIES LIMITED DEBENTURE HOLDERS This notice is sent to you by order of the Honourable Justice Robson made on 2 June 2016, and under the rules of the Supreme
More informationForm F5 Start-up Crowdfunding Funding Portal Individual Information Form
Form 45-501F5 Start-up Crowdfunding Funding Portal Individual Information Form GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS: (1) This form must be typed, printed, signed and delivered via e-mail with any attachments and the corresponding
More informationCase Name: Om Sai Physiotherapy Clinic Inc. v. Kucher
Page 1 Case Name: Om Sai Physiotherapy Clinic Inc. v. Kucher Between Om Sai Physiotherapy Clinic Inc., Plaintiffs, and Robert Kucher, Defendant And between Robert Kucher, Plaintiff by Counterclaim, and
More informationdays. If you are served outside Canada and the United States of America, the period is sixty days.
Court File No. SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DARA FRESCO Plaintiff -and - CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE Defendant PROCEEDING UNDER THE CLASS PROCEEDINGS ACT, 1992 TO THE DEFENDANT STATEMENT OF CLAIM A
More informationPage: 2 which resulted in the cessation of the defendant s manufacturing operations in Canada on May 27, [4] The plaintiff had been offered a se
COURT FILE NO.: 08-CV-361809 DATE: 2009/01/12 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: Sivathason Mahesuram Plaintiff Bram Lecker, for the Plaintiff - and - Canac Kitchens Ltd., a Division of Kohler
More informationDuncan W. Glaholt. Markus Rotterdam *
1 6 CONSTRUCTION LAW REPORTS 3 C.L.R. (3d) Case Comment: Toro Aluminum Ltd. v. Revah Duncan W. Glaholt Markus Rotterdam * Does a person liable for breach of trust as an accessory under s. 13(1) of the
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION. Patrick Jay
Citation: Jay v. DHL Express Date: 20060103 2006 PESCTD 01 Docket: S1 GS-18505 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION Between: And: Patrick Jay DHL
More informationRECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAW OF STAY OF PROCEEDINGS. Brandon Jaffe Jaffe & Peritz LLP
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAW OF STAY OF PROCEEDINGS Brandon Jaffe Jaffe & Peritz LLP 1 SECTION 69 OF THE BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY ACT ( BIA ) 2 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE BIA STAY PROVISIONS 1 Since
More information2013 ONSC 5288 Ontario Superior Court of Justice. S&R Flooring Concepts Inc. v. RLC Stratford LP
2013 ONSC 5288 Ontario Superior Court of Justice S&R Flooring Concepts Inc. v. RLC Stratford LP 2013 CarswellOnt 12254, 2013 ONSC 5288, 232 A.C.W.S. (3d) 95, 31 C.L.R. (4th) 89 S&R Flooring Concepts Inc.,
More informationCHECKLIST FOR RULE 61 APPEALS TO AN APPEAL DIVISION I N D E X Certificate or Agreement Respecting Evidence
CHECKLIST FOR RULE 61 APPEALS TO AN APPEAL DIVISION I N D E X 61.02 Leave to Appeal 61.03 Commencement of Appeals 61.04 Certificate or Agreement Respecting Evidence 61.05 Cross-Appeals 61.06 Amendment
More informationCrafting the Perfect Rule 49 Offer to Settle
Crafting the Perfect Rule 49 Offer to Settle Nathaniel Dillonsmith September 2017 Offers to settle can take a wide range of forms and can involve a variety of terms. However, an offer to settle which is
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION. SOGELCO INTERNATIONAL INC., and SOGELCO INDUSTRIES INC.
PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION Citation: Sogelco v. Island Sea Products et al Date: 20060111 2006 PESCTD 03 Docket: S1-GS-21256 Registry: Charlottetown BETWEEN:
More informationand REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
Citation: New Brunswick (Financial and Consumer Services Commission) v. Stratus Financial Group International, 2015 NBFCST 2 PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK FINANCIAL AND CONSUMER SERVICES TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER
More informationGetting Out Early: Motion Techniques for Early Resolution of Claims. Jay Skukowski
Getting Out Early: Motion Techniques for Early Resolution of Claims Jay Skukowski 416-593-1221 jskukowski@blaney.com What is a Motion? A motion is an oral or written application requesting a court to make
More informationIN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R v. Robichaud, 2008 NSPC 51 HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN. - versus - PHILLIP ROBICHAUD
Editors note: Erratum released September 25, 2008.Original judgment has been corrected, with text of Erratum appended. IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R v. Robichaud, 2008 NSPC 51 Date:
More informationCase Name: CEJ Poultry Inc. v. Intact Insurance Co.
Page 1 Case Name: CEJ Poultry Inc. v. Intact Insurance Co. Counsel: RE: CEJ Poultry Inc., and Intact Insurance Company and The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company [2012] O.J. No. 3005 2012 ONSC
More informationGENERAL RULES ABOUT COSTS
GENERAL RULES ABOUT COSTS PART 44 PART 44 Contents of this Part Rule 44.1 Rule 44.2 Rule 44.3 Rule 44.3A Rule 44.3B Rule 44.3C Rule 44.4 Rule 44.5 Rule 44.6 Rule 44.7 Rule 44.8 Rule 44.9 Rule 44.10 Rule
More informationCASH MANAGEMENT SERVICES MASTER AGREEMENT
This Cash Management Services Master Agreement (the Master Agreement ) and any applicable Schedules (the Master Agreement and any applicable Schedules are together referred to as the Agreement ) sets out
More informationConstitutional Practice and Procedure in Administrative Tribunals: An Emerging Issue
Constitutional Practice and Procedure in Administrative Tribunals: An Emerging Issue David Stratas Introduction After much controversy, 1 the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that tribunals that have
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 informationIN THE MATTER OF THE SECURITIES ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5, AS AMENDED - AND - IN THE MATTER OF PETER SBARAGLIA
Ontario Commission des P.O. Box 55, 19 th Floor CP 55, 19e étage Securities valeurs mobilières 20 Queen Street West 20, rue queen ouest Commission de l Ontario Toronto ON M5H 3S8 Toronto ON M5H 3S8 IN
More informationReport A August 17, Legal Aid Commission of Newfoundland and Labrador
eport A-2018-019 August 17, 2018 Legal Aid Commission of Newfoundland and Labrador Summary: The Applicant requested from the Legal Aid Commission invoices and details of payments to lawyers from the private
More informationONTARIO ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Applicant. Respondents REASONS FOR DECISION
CITATION: Kee Kwok v. State Farm Mutual, 2016 ONSC 7339 COURT FILE NO.: CV-16-559520 DATE: 20161202 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: KEE KWOK, by his Litigation Guardian Grace Kwok and Applicant
More informationCourt Administration DEC 1 ' Halifax, N.S. SIJPRl~ME COVl.'<T Oli' NOVA SCOTIA. ALBERT CARL SWIJ:KfLAND and BARBARA FONTAINE.
Court Administration 2009 BETWEEN: DEC 1 ' 2018 Halifax, N.S. SIJPRl~ME COVl.'
More information