Armour Group Ltd. v. Halifax (Regional Municipality), 2008 NSSC 123

• Judge: Goodfellow, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: March 17, 2008
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: 2008 NSSC 123;(2008), 267 N.S.R.(2d) 350 (SC)

Armour Group Ltd. v. Halifax (2008), 267 N.S.R.(2d) 350 (SC);

    853 A.P.R. 350

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2008] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. JL.019

The Armour Group Limited (plaintiff) v. Halifax Regional Municipality, a body corporate (defendant)

(SH No. 288775; 2008 NSSC 123)

Indexed As: Armour Group Ltd. v. Halifax (Regional Municipality)

Nova Scotia Supreme Court

Goodfellow, J.

July 3, 2008.

Summary:

Armour Group Ltd. sought and obtained a declaration that a building located in Halifax was not designated as a Heritage Property under the Heritage Property Act (see 263 N.S.R.(2d) 200; 843 A.P.R 200). The application involved a half day chambers hearing. Armour Group sought party and party costs of $27,000 plus disbursements, indicating that its total legal fees for the application were approximately $35,000.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court allowed Armour Group party and party cost in the amount of $950 plus disbursements.

Practice - Topic 7002

Costs - Party and party costs - General principles and definitions - Chambers applications - Armour Group Ltd. sought and obtained a declaration that a building located in Halifax was not designated as a Heritage Property under the Heritage Property Act - The application involved a half day chambers hearing - Armour Group sought party and party costs of $27,000 plus disbursements, indicating that its total legal fees for the application were approximately $35,000 - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court allowed Armour Group party and party cost in the amount of $950 plus disbursements - There was nothing unusual with respect to the half day chambers application - There were no special circumstances warranting a departure from Tariff C - See paragraph 26.

Practice - Topic 7002

Costs - Party and party costs - General principles and definitions - Chambers applications - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court stated that the adoption of Tariff C respecting costs on chambers applications took into account the necessity of having a Tariff that provided a substantial and reasonable contribution of party and party costs and that to go beyond Tariff C in chambers matters required special circumstances - The court listed several factors which were indicative of the kinds of situations and factors that were likely to give rise to the possible consideration of an exercise of discretion in the area of chambers party and party costs - See paragraphs 20 to 21.

Practice - Topic 7002

Costs - Party and party costs - General principles and definitions - Chambers applications - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court stated that "The speed of escalation of legal fees is not one that the court can or should try and keep pace with. Solicitors and clients are in the market place and set their own contractual fee and service conditions. The court through its establishing of Tariffs is meant to provide a reasonable level of recovery of party and party costs ... In the vast majority of situations recently I find that the requests for increased costs in chamber's applications are tantamount to a request for a high portion of costs on a solicitor and client basis and the law is very clear as to what is required before a court ought to exercise its discretion in awarding solicitor and client costs. The court should not take the position of approving of the escalation of legal fees and should adhere in almost every case to the new Tariffs which are meant to provide a high level of certainty to litigants as to the degree of recovery they can reasonably anticipate should they be the recipient of an award of costs or as to the costs the party may be called to pay if unsuccessful" - See paragraph 23.

Practice - Topic 7641

Costs - The tariffs, schedules etc. - General - [See third Practice - Topic 7002 ].

Cases Noticed:

Landymore et al. v. Hardy et al. (1992), 112 N.S.R.(2d) 410; 307 A.P.R. 410; 1992 CarswellNS 90 (T.D.), consd. [para. 4].

Keating et al. v. Bragg et al. (1997), 160 N.S.R.(2d) 363; 473 A.P.R. 363 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

Little v. Chignecto Central Regional School Board (2004), 227 N.S.R.(2d) 103; 720 A.P.R. 103; 2004 NSSC 204, refd to. [para. 6].

Miller v. Royal Bank of Canada (2008), 265 N.S.R.(2d) 58; 848 A.P.R. 58; 2008 NSSC 139, refd to. [para. 7].

Smith v. Michelin North America (Canada) Inc. (2008), 262 N.S.R.(2d) 337; 839 A.P.R. 337; 2008 CarswellNS 102; 2008 NSSC 66, consd. [para. 8].

Trim v. Beaudet et al. (2003), 220 N.S.R.(2d) 35; 694 A.P.R. 35; 2003 NSSC 238, dist. [para. 12].

Beaini v. Association of Professional Engineers of Nova Scotia, 2003 NSSC 231, refd to. [para. 14].

Okoro v. Human Rights Commission (N.S.) et al., [2006] N.S.R.(2d) Uned. 100; 2006 NSSC 257, consd. [para. 17].

Consumer Advocate v. Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities (Nfld. & Lab.) et al. (2005), 246 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 128; 731 A.P.R. 128 (N.L.T.D.), refd to. [para. 20].

Gilfoy et al. v. Kelloway et al. (2000), 184 N.S.R.(2d) 226; 573 A.P.R. 226 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 20].

Roose v. Hollett et al. (1995), 147 N.S.R.(2d) 295; 426 A.P.R. 295 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Statutes Noticed:

Civil Procedure Rules (N.S.), Tariff C [para. 7].

Counsel:

Jane E. O'Neill and Jennifer J. Biernaskie, for the plaintiff;

Karen L. Brown and Sara J. Knight, for the defendant.

This matter was heard on March 17, 2008, at Halifax, Nova Scotia, before Goodfellow, J., of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, who delivered the following decision on July 3, 2008.