Anglican Parish v. Oceanic Camping, (2015) 431 N.B.R.(2d) 359 (TD)

Judge:Ouellette, J.
Court:Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick
Case Date:December 18, 2014
Jurisdiction:New Brunswick
Citations:(2015), 431 N.B.R.(2d) 359 (TD);2015 NBQB 3
 
FREE EXCERPT

Anglican Parish v. Oceanic Camping (2015), 431 N.B.R.(2d) 359 (TD);

    431 R.N.-B.(2e) 359; 1124 A.P.R. 359

MLB headnote and full text

Sommaire et texte intégral

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2015] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. JA.011

Renvoi temp.: [2015] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. JA.011

The Corporation of the Anglican Parish of Shediac (applicant) v. Oceanic Camping Resort Inc. (respondent)

(M/M/53/14; 2015 NBQB 3; 2015 NBBR 3)

Indexed As: Corporation of the Anglican Parish of Shediac v. Oceanic Camping Resort Inc.

Répertorié: Corporation of the Anglican Parish of Shediac v. Oceanic Camping Resort Inc.

New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench

Trial Division

Judicial District of Moncton

Ouellette, J.

January 6, 2015.

Summary:

Résumé:

The applicant applied under rule 16.04(e) of the Rules of Court seeking a ruling on the interpretation of the meaning of the word "adjacent" in a clause contained in a lease agreement between the applicant and the respondent. The respondent filed a motion that the application be converted to an action and proceed to trial under rule 38.09(b).

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, granted the motion.

Practice - Topic 2493

Writ of summons, endorsements, originating summons and originating notices - Originating notices (incl. judicial review) - Conversion to or from formal action - The applicant applied under rule 16.04(e) of the Rules of Court seeking a ruling on the interpretation of the meaning of the word "adjacent" in a clause contained in a lease agreement between the applicant and the respondent - The respondent filed a motion that the application be converted to an action and proceed to trial under rule 38.09(b) - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, granted the motion - The court stated that "It is obvious in light of the evidence on record and the nature of the dispute between the parties that this is a question for a determination of rights which depend upon the interpretation of a contract with the abduction of significant extrinsic evidence" - There was a substantial dispute regarding many of the facts - There was a necessity to call evidence on many aspects of the application - It was preferable to give each party the opportunity to fully present their positions and have all the information before the court.

Practice - Topic 3082

Applications and motions - Applications - Disposition - Application to proceed as action - [See Practice - Topic 2493 ].

Procédure - Cote 2493

Bref d'assignation, mentions, assignations et avis introductifs d'instance - Avis introductifs d'instance - Modification en une action ordinaire - [Voir Practice - Topic 2493 ].

Procédure - Cote 3082

Requêtes et motions - Requêtes - Décision - Requête instruite comme une action - [Voir Practice - Topic 3082 ].

Cases Noticed:

Strata Plan No. 60 v. Sidney (Town), [1981] B.C.J. No. 181 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 20].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court (N.B.), rule 16.04(e) [para. 12]; rule 38.09(b) [para. 14].

Counsel:

Avocats:

Edwin Ehrhardt, Q.C., on behalf of the applicant;

James E. Fowler, Q.C., on behalf of the respondent.

This motion was heard on December 18, 2014, before Ouellette, J., of the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, Judicial District of Moncton, who delivered the following decision on January 6, 2015.

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP