Brown v. Mar Taino S.A. et al.

• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Court: Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Judge: Moir, J.
• Citation: 2016 NSSC 91,(2016), 372 N.S.R.(2d) 399 (SC)
• Date: 07 April 2016

Brown v. Mar Taino SA (2016), 372 N.S.R.(2d) 399 (SC);

    1172 A.P.R. 399

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2016] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. AP.010

Arthur Reginal Brown (plaintiff) v. Mar Taino S.A., Cadena Mar S.L., Thomas Cook Travel Inc., and Vision 2000 Travel Management Inc. (defendants)

(Hfx. No. 407094; 2016 NSSC 91)

Indexed As: Brown v. Mar Taino S.A. et al.

Nova Scotia Supreme Court

Moir, J.

April 7, 2016.

Summary :

Brown sued in Nova Scotia for injuries he suffered while staying at a resort in the Dominican Republic. Two of the defendants, Mar Taino S.A., a Dominican corporation, and Cadena Mar S.L., a Spanish corporation, had some connection with the hotel. The owner was Tureymar S.A., another Dominican corporation. Cadena Mar owned Mar Taino and Tureymar. Mar Taino and Cadena Mar moved for an order dismissing the action for want of territorial jurisdiction or staying the action on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at (2015), 367 N.S.R.(2d) 253; 1157 A.P.R. 253, allowed the motion on the basis of a lack of territorial jurisdiction. Had territorial jurisdiction been established, the court would not have stayed the action on the ground of forum non conveniens. Mar Taino and Cadena Mar sought costs of $15,000, plus disbursements of $2,646.17. Brown argued for $1,000 and nothing for disbursements.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court awarded Mar Taino and Cadena Mar costs in the amount of $4,559.70.

Practice - Topic 7118.1

Costs - Party and party costs - Special orders - Multiplier - Defendants moved for an order dismissing an action for want of territorial jurisdiction or staying the action on the basis of forum non conveniens - The motion was allowed on the basis of a lack of territorial jurisdiction - The defendants sought costs of $15,000, plus disbursements of $2,646.17 based on Tariff A - The plaintiff argued for $1,000 and nothing for disbursements - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court stated that the title for Tariff A was misleading - It was restricted to cases determined by trial of an action or hearing of an application in court - Costs of a motion, or an application in chambers, were determined under Tariff C - Rule 77.06(3) translated the title of Tariff C into the language of the Rules adopted in 2008 - When the Tariffs were created, a motion was an interlocutory application - A motion that successfully challenged the jurisdictional foundation of an action was within Tariff C(4) - The purpose of Tariff C(4) was to provide indemnity for expenses implicated in the results of a successful motion, such as happened in a successful motion for summary judgment, and chambers applications that had much more to them than ordinary motions - The Tariff called for a multiplier based on three factors: complexity, importance to the parties, and the effort involved in preparing and conducting the action - The court doubled the maximum and awarded costs of $4,000 plus disbursements ($4,559.70).

Practice - Topic 7136

Costs - Party and party costs - Disbursements - Travelling expenses - General - Defendants moved for an order dismissing an action for want of territorial jurisdiction or staying the action on the basis of forum non conveniens - The motion was allowed on the basis of a lack of territorial jurisdiction - The defendants claimed, inter alia, $2,186.47 spent for their counsel to travel from Toronto - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court rejected the claim - The court had long refused to indemnify travel costs of counsel when local counsel would do - See paragraph 13.

Practice - Topic 7364

Costs - Costs of interlocutory proceedings - Costs of motions or applications - [See Practice - Topic 7118.1 ].

Counsel:

Brian J. Hebert, for the plaintiff;

Arie Odinocki, for the defendants, Mar Taino S.A., and Cadena Mar S.L.;

Tyana Caplan, for the defendant, Thomas Cook Travel Inc.

This costs matter was heard by way of written submissions, by Moir, J., of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, who delivered the following decision on April 7, 2016.