3021386 Nova Scotia Ltd. v. Barrington District (Municipality) et al., 2014 NSSC 313

• Judge: Muise, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: August 25, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: 2014 NSSC 313;(2014), 350 N.S.R.(2d) 182 (SC)

3021386 N.S. v. Barrington District (2014), 350 N.S.R.(2d) 182 (SC);

    1105 A.P.R. 182

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. SE.006

3021386 Nova Scotia Limited, a corporation (plaintiff) v. Municipality of the District of Barrington, a corporation (defendant)

(Yarmouth No. 404871; 2014 NSSC 313)

Indexed As: 3021386 Nova Scotia Ltd. v. Barrington District (Municipality) et al.

Nova Scotia Supreme Court

Muise, J.

August 25, 2014.

Summary:

The plaintiff purchased property for development from the defendant municipality. There were two wells that provided water to the property, one that was on the property (the courtyard well) and one that was adjacent to the property (the soccer field well). During demolition, the piping leading from the courtyard well was destroyed. The plaintiff's request for permission from the defendant to use the soccer field well was denied. The plaintiff claimed an implied easement to use the soccer field well.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at (2014), 339 N.S.R.(2d) 153; 1073 A.P.R. 153, dismissed the application. The parties made submissions on costs.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court awarded the defendant costs of $8,000, plus disbursements and HST of $1,656.36.

Practice - Topic 7003

Costs - Party and party costs - General principles and definitions - Amount involved - The plaintiff purchased property for development from the defendant municipality - There were two wells that provided water to the property, one that was on the property (the courtyard well) and one that was adjacent to the property (the soccer field well) - During demolition, the piping leading from the courtyard well was destroyed - The plaintiff's application for a declaration that it had an implied easement to use the soccer field well was dismissed - The parties made submissions on costs - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court awarded the defendant costs of $8,000, plus disbursements and HST of $1,656.36 - The plaintiff would have to spend about $15,000 to hook up to a well - The entire property cost $25,000 - This made the amount involved for costs purposes significantly less than $25,000 - See paragraphs 13 and 14.

Practice - Topic 7035

Costs - Party and party costs - Entitlement to party and party costs - The Crown or governmental bodies - [See Practice - Topic 7109 ].

Practice - Topic 7109

Costs - Party and party costs - Special orders - Discretion to exceed scale of costs (incl. power to award percentage of actual costs) - The plaintiff purchased property for development from the defendant municipality - There were two wells that provided water to the property, one that was on the property (the courtyard well) and one that was adjacent to the property (the soccer field well) - During demolition, the piping leading from the courtyard well was destroyed - The plaintiff's application for a declaration that it had an implied easement to use the soccer field well was dismissed - The parties made submissions on costs - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court awarded the defendant costs of $8,000, plus disbursements and HST of $1,656.36 - Given the lack of complexity and the relatively low financial value of the issue (under $25,000), there was no reason to depart from the basic scale - The hearing lasted two days - Therefore, $2,000 per day was added to the basic amount of $4,000 - No reduction from that was warranted - The fact that the defendant paid its legal bills from tax revenue was irrelevant - See paragraphs 15 to 20.

Practice - Topic 7109.1

Costs - Party and party costs - Special orders - Increased costs (based on solicitor and client or special costs) - The plaintiff purchased property for development from the defendant municipality - There were two wells that provided water to the property, one that was on the property (the courtyard well) and one that was adjacent to the property (the soccer field well) - During demolition, the piping leading from the courtyard well was destroyed - The plaintiff's application for a declaration that it had an implied easement to use the soccer field well was dismissed - The parties made submissions on costs - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court awarded the defendant costs of $8,000, plus disbursements and HST of $1,656.36 - The court disagreed with the defendant's assertion that this was an appropriate case to award an additional lump sum to reach a total cost amount that would provide substantial contribution toward the defendant's reasonable legal expenses - There were no special circumstances here that required "a sufficient level of exceptional legal services" - While the tariff might not have kept pace with what had become a substantial contribution toward legal expenses, that, in itself, did not justify a lump sum over and above tariff costs - See paragraphs 22 to 25.

Practice - Topic 7115

Costs - Party and party costs - Special orders - Increase in scale of costs - Difficulty and complexity of proceedings - [See Practice - Topic 7109 ].

Practice - Topic 7134

Costs - Party and party costs - Disbursements - Photocopies, scanning or printing - The successful defendant's list of disbursements included a unit price of 20 cents per copy for internal photocopies - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court held that 10 cents per copy was reasonable and reduced the defendant's internal photocopying expenses accordingly - See paragraph 27.

Cases Noticed:

Viehbeck v. Pook, [2012] N.S.R.(2d) Uned. 70; 2012 NSSC 113, dist. [para. 2].

MacCormick v. Dewar, [2011] N.S.R.(2d) Uned. 15; 2011 NSSC 10, refd to. [para. 3].

MacDonald et al. v. Holland's Carriers Ltd. et al., [2011] N.S.R.(2d) Uned. 266; 2011 NSSC 436, refd to. [para. 3].

Veinot v. Veinot Estate et al. (1998), 172 N.S.R.(2d) 111; 524 A.P.R. 111 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1999), 243 N.R. 195 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 12].

Ocean v. Economical Mutual Insurance Co. et al. (2013), 329 N.S.R.(2d) 131; 1042 A.P.R. 131; 2013 NSSC 120, refd to. [para. 12].

Richards v. Richards et al. (2013), 335 N.S.R.(2d) 203; 1060 A.P.R. 203; 2013 NSSC 269, refd to. [para. 23].

Armour Group Ltd. v. Halifax (Regional Municipality) (2008), 267 N.S.R.(2d) 350; 853 A.P.R. 350; 2008 NSSC 123, refd to. [para. 23].

Counsel:

Christopher I. Robinson, for the applicant;

Kevin C. MacDonald, for the respondent.

This costs matter was heard by correspondence by Muise, J., of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, who delivered the following judgment on August 25, 2014.