IN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Pommerville v. MacLean, 2019 NSSM 42 2 019 Claim No. SCT475043 BETWEEN: MAURICE (MOE) POMMERVILLE Claimant -and-CURTIS MacLEAN Defendant Hearing Date: May 13, 2019 Appearances: Claimant-Jeff Lattie, Barrister & Solicitor Defendant -Ian Dunbar, Barrister & Solicitor DECISION and ORDER [1] This is a claim for the return of two motor vehicles. At the hearing before me on May 13 th , the sole issue was whether or not the claim was properly before the Small Claims Court. Specifically, the Defendant asserts that the value of the two vehicles is, in the aggregate, greater than $25,000 and therefore, by virtue of Section 9(c) of the Small Claims Court Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c.430, this Court has no jurisdiction. Background [2 ] The Claimant is seeking the return of his two motor vehicles -a 1967 Chevelle and a 1967 Camaro. Both of these vehicles are owned by the Claimant but are presently in the possession of the Defendant. Under a written agreement dated May 11, 2014, the Defendant agreed to provide to the Claimant, a complete restoration of the 1967 Camaro in exchange for ownership of the 1967 Chevelle. The agreement has a section headed "Scope and Manner of Services" which includes many specific items of work which were to be completed on the Camaro. Significantly, for the purposes of this matter, is the following paragraph in the written contract: If for any reason such as physical impairment, bankroptcy, or death, Curtis Maclean and/or Curtis Customs cannot fulfill the contract as set out above, both vehicles known as (1) 1967 Chevelle, Vin 1
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.