Supreme Court

Decision Information

Decision Content

                          IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA

Citation:  Waterside Auto Sales v. Halifax Nissan, 2003 NSSC 24

 

 

                                                                                                     Date: 20030129

                                                                                                     Docket: 113682

                                                                                                   Registry: Sydney

 

 

Between:

               Homewood Enterprises Limited, doing business under the firm

                 name and style of Waterside Auto Sales, and Douglas Forrest

                                                                    Plaintiff / Defendant by Counterclaim

                                                             v.

 

                     147486 Canada Limited, operating under the firm name

                                          and style of Halifax Nissan

                                                                    Defendant / Plaintiff by Counterclaim

 

 

 

Judge:                            The Honourable Justice Frank Edwards

 

Heard:                           in Sydney, Nova Scotia

 

Written Decision: January 29, 2003

 

Counsel:                         Hugh R. McLeod, Esq., for the Plaintiff / Defendant by

   Counterclaim

Steven G. Zatzman, Esq., for the Defendant / Plaintiff by

   Counterclaim

 


By the Court:

 

[1]              The plaintiff, Home Wood Enterprises Ltd., discontinued its action against the defendant approximately one week prior to trial.  The discontinuance was necessitated by the fact that the plaintiff did not hold a certificate of registration pursuant to Section 17 of the Corporation Registration Act.  It had not paid its annual fees.

[2]              By the time of the discontinuance, the defendant had substantially completed its preparation for trial.  That preparation included the filing of a pre-trial brief wherein it raised the Section 17 defence.

[3]              The plaintiff submits that an appropriate award of costs would be $1,700.00, which would be approximately one half the entitlement under Tariff A.  Plaintiffs counsel points out that three days of trial have been avoided despite the lateness of the discontinuance.  I agree with his submission on this point.


[4]              Defendants counsel asks that I stay any further proceeding brought by the plaintiff for the same or substantially the same claim until the costs are paid.  Civil Procedure Rule 40.03 gives me a discretion to make such an order.  The defendant has been put to considerable cost and inconvenience as a result of the original action.  It would be unfair to oblige the defendant to defend a subsequent action before it has at least recovered the taxed costs of the first.  I am therefore directing the requested stay.

[5]              In summary, the defendant will have its costs of $1,700.00 plus reasonable disbursements of $439.25.  In addition, the plaintiff will not commence any further proceeding until the costs and disbursements are paid in full.

Order accordingly.

 

                                                             J.

 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.