.. Cite as: Lasch v. Annapolis County (Municipality), 1993 NSCO 16 1990 C.AR. No. 02514 IN THE COUNTY COURT OF DISTRICT NUMBER THREE BETWEEN: NICK LASCH PLAINTIFF - and THE MUNICIPALITY OF THE COUNTY OF ANNAPOLIS DEFENDANT HEARD: By Submissions BEFORE: The Honourable Judge Charles E. Haliburton, J.C.C. SUBJECT: Application to strike a Jury Notice DECISION: The 4th day of January, A.D. 1993 COUNSEL: w. Bruce Gillis, Q. c. , Esq., for the Plaintiff David A. Miller, Q. c. , Esq., for the Defendant D E C I S I 0 N
HALIBURTON, J.C.C. This is an application to strike a 34(a)(ii) of the Judicature trial of the matter with jury is set to Royal, Nova Scotia, on January 18th, 1993. The claim of the Plaintiff is in wrongful dismissal. Plaintiff, having been employed of Planning", had his job terminated after half years when, on November 21st, 1989, the Municipality decided to join the Annapolis County District Planning Commission, Commission being a joint project of several municipalities within the county boundaries. The Plaintiff made application to be hired by the Commission which succeeded to the work behalf of the County, but he was not hired. The Municipality gave Planning Department to the Plaintiff with termination effective December Plaintiff a sum equal to one months' salary in lieu of notice. Arising from this termination of employment, claims general damages, special prejudice interest and costs. damages flow not only from his breach of contract but that he has suffered from the tort Municipality or its officers. The Defendant, in making this application, represents that jury notice under Section Act, R.S.N.S., Chapter 240. The commence at Annapolis The by the Defendant as "Director some seven and a the which he had previously done on notice of termination of their on November 29th, 1989, 31st. They paid to the the Plaintiff damages, exemplary damages, The Plaintiff alleges that the of deceit on the part of the
- the facts and issues involved determination by a jury. It is argued that there are number of documents. The inference, consume substantial time to read and interpret those documents and that the Judge will face particular difficulty in instructing the jury with respect to the tort of deceit or not punitive or exemplary damages can and should be allowed. I am grateful to Counsel for providing relating to an application of this nature. the cases, all of which I have entitled to have his trial by election clearly may be set aside by the Court for good reason. In considering this application, criminal trials are heard sometimes run for many months some degree of complexity. time for decision making, the jury will be sequestered and will remain so until they have reached who may take whatever time and reports and mull over conscious, too, that it is primarily on the basis of the case as seen through the eyes of the Plaintiff that this preliminary determination should be made. that a Plaintiff has a prima facie right to have his cause heard and determined by a jury, it would seem inappropriate to permit a Defendant to have that election set aside myriad of documents, expert opinions, and/or legal complexities. 2 do not lend themselves to a large I presume, is that it will and and whether a number of cases It is clear from reviewed, that a Plain tiff is jury if he so elects. Such an I am mindful of the fact that by juries and that those trials and must, of necessity, involve I am conscious, too, that at the a decision, unlike the Judge is necessary to review documents or review the evidence. I am That is to say, if it is correct by introducing a
- 3 By making this latter comment, that the Defence, in this case, has done so. that view as background to the approach I The Plaintiff Counsel, the questions which will fall to be answered at the conclusion of the trial, are as follows: 1. What were the circumstances Plaintiff was working? 2. What were the circumstances dismissal? 3. What success has he had in mitigating his losses? 4. What would be a reasonable period of pay in lieu of notice for his dismissal? deductions for amounts are not in dispute). 5. Was the manner of his dismissal high handed enough to warrant punitive damages and how much? In putting forth those questions, Plaintiff's Counsel indicated in effect that because concede "lack of cause" for the termination of claim in deceit will not be pursued. In considering the pleadings have before me, I had concluded before reviewing the Plaintiff's submissions that the issues almost entirely matters of and to what extent has the Plaintiff mitigated his losses appear to be the primary questions. Whether exemplary or punitive damages are available under breach of contract is a matter of law about which Counsel have opposing views. The availability -I do not for a moment suggest I merely enunciate have decided to take. in his submission, suggests that under which the surrounding his (With the appropriate earned in the mean time which has the Defence is prepared to employment, the and the materials which I which fall to be determined are fact. What is appropriate notice of such damages is clearly
- 4 a matter of law to be determined assessment of damages is a the jury. The relevant facts necessary to be should be determined with relative ease. the Plaintiff has mitigated his losses, likewise. that there was some mala fides or "high handedness" of the Municipality or its officers which would, in law, entitle the Plaintiff to some further recovery, then there is no reason to think the jury incapable of assigning appropriate values. The trial of the matter is expected to last three days. It is not a lengthy matter. 54 documents for the jury to review but these are in the nature of letters and Council Minutes which will be neither complicated nor technical. Counsel may to review by abstracting relevant those portions of documents, particularly Council Minutes, which may have some bearing on the issues to be raised. In the circumstances, the application to strike the is dismissed. DATED at Digby, Nova Scotia, this 4th day of January, A.D. 1993. DICTATED BUT NOT READ. by the Trial Judge but the question of fact properly left to proven in this matter The extent to which In the event on the part There will, apparently, be some indeed be able to make them easier materials or highlighting jury CHARLES E. HALIBURTON JUDGE OF THE COUNTY COURT OF DISTRICT NUMBER THREE
.ยท - 5 -TO: Mrs. Patricia Connell Clerk of the County Court P.O. Box 129 Annapolis Royal, Nova Scotia BOV lAO Mr. W. Bruce Gillis, Q.C. Durland, Gillis & Parker Barristers & Solicitors P.O. Box 700 Middleton, Nova Scotia BOS lPO Solicitor for the Plaintiff Mr. David A. Miller, Q.C. Stewart McKelvey Stirling Scales Barristers & Solicitors P.O. Box 997 Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 2X2 Solicitor for the Defendant
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.