Campbell et al. v. Inverness (County), (1990) 98 N.S.R.(2d) 330 (TD)

• Judge: Nathanson, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: December 01, 1989
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: (1990), 98 N.S.R.(2d) 330 (TD)

Campbell v. Inverness (1990), 98 N.S.R.(2d) 330 (TD);

    263 A.P.R. 330

MLB headnote and full text

Hugh T. Campbell, David J. MacLean, Barrie Fraser, Clifford Collins, Chris MacGregor, Wesley MacLean, Hugh Cameron, Peter MacMillian, Grant MacDougall, Catherine M. MacLean, Harold MacFarlane, Marie Brann, Jim Smith, Robert Brann, Christie MacKinnon, John R. Gillis, Edward A. Campbell, Bill McCarthy, Arnold Toby and Michael Gillis (plaintiffs) v. The Municipality of the County of Inverness (defendant)

(S.PH. No. 00643)

(S.H. No. 59172)

Indexed As: Campbell et al. v. Inverness (County)

Nova Scotia Supreme Court

Trial Division

Nathanson, J.

July 3, 1990.

Summary:

The plaintiff residents of the Municipality of Inverness County opposed the operation of a dump site in their neighbourhood and organized to lobby the municipality to terminate it. As a result, the municipality expressed at various times over a few years its intention to close the dump and passed resolutions confirming its intention, but it never did. The plaintiffs claimed that the municipality breached its agreement to close the dump and brought an action for a declaration of breach of contract or, alternatively, promissory estoppel and an injunction to restrain the breach. At the close of the plaintiff's case the municipality moved for a nonsuit.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Trial Division, allowed the motion and dismissed the plaintiffs' action on the ground that the municipality never agreed to close the dump and that the doctrine of promissory estoppel was inapplicable in the circumstances.

Contracts - Topic 9911

Promissory estoppel - Where applicable - General - Municipal residents opposed a dump site and organized to lobby the municipality to close it - The municipality expressed at various times over a few years its intention to close the dump and passed resolutions confirming its intention, but it never did - The residents brought an action founded on promissory estoppel, alleging that the municipality breached an agreement to close the dump - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Trial Division, dismissed the action and held that promissory estoppel was inapplicable, because there was no existing legal relationship between the residents and the municipality sufficient to ground promissory estoppel; the municipality's conduct did not constitute a promise; and promissory estoppel could not be found a cause of action - See paragraphs 65 to 91.

Contracts - Topic 9911

Promissory estoppel - Where applicable - General - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Trial Division, held that a promissory estoppel must be supported by a promise or assurance, which may be given by words or conduct; the promise or assurance must be intended to affect an existing legal relationship (such as a contract); promissory estoppel may be part of the cause of action, but may not by itself be a cause of action; and the promisee must alter his position to his detriment - See paragraphs 65 to 86.

Contracts - Topic 9916

Promissory estoppel - Where applicable - As shield or sword - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Trial Division, held that promissory estoppel could be part of a cause of action, but could not by itself be a cause of action; rather it may only be used as a defence to the strict enforcement of the promisee's rights - See paragraphs 55 to 86.

Municipal Law - Topic 405

Councils - Resolutions - Effect of - As contract - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Trial Division, held that a resolution of a council could constitute a contract, but generally did not, and generally a contract made up of offer, acceptance, common intention and consideration is needed - See paragraphs 51 to 64.

Municipal Law - Topic 1493

Powers of municipalities - Particular powers - Waste disposal - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Trial Division, held that under s. 74(g) and 78(az) of the Municipality Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 295, a municipality had the authority to agree with a citizens group to close a municipal dump - See paragraphs 41 to 45.

Municipal Law - Topic 1504

Powers of municipalities - Particular powers - Contracts - [See Municipal Law - Topic 1493].

Municipal Law - Topic 2202

Contracts by a municipality - Formal requirements - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Trial Division, held that a municipality has the power to contract and that a bylaw, resolution or contract under seal is not necessary to exercise the power - See paragraphs 46 to 50.

Municipal Law - Topic 2525

Contracts by municipality - Authority required - Resolution by council of municipality - [See Municipal Law - Topic 2202].

Municipal Law - Topic 2627

Contracts by municipality - Defences - Lack of seal or signature - [See Municipal Law - Topic 2202].

Practice - Topic 5331

Trial on agreed statement of facts - General - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Trial Division, commented that an agreed statement of facts, which was 52 pages long, was little, if any, help to the court and was not to be recommended - See paragraphs 5 to 7.

Practice - Topic 5386

Dismissal of action - Motion for dismissal - During trial - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Trial Division, held that the test to be applied on a motion for nonsuit was whether there was sufficient evidence on which a jury, properly instructed, could find for the plaintiff - See paragraphs 37 to 38.

Cases Noticed:

J.W. Cowie Engineering Limited v. Allen et al. (1982), 52 N.S.R.(2d) 321; 106 A.P.R. 321, appld. [para. 38].

Attorney General (ex rel. Mackintosh) v. Halifax (1903), 36 N.S.R. 177 (S.C. en banc), consd. [para. 49].

Silver's Garage Ltd. v. Town of Bridgewater (1970), 2 N.S.R.(2d) 474; 17 D.L.R.(3d) 1 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 49].

Tilbury East (Township) v. Raleigh (Township) (1979), 10 M.P.L.R. 38 (Ont. S.C.), consd. [para. 49].

Central London Property Trust Ltd. v. High Trees House Ltd., [1956] 1 All E.R. 256; [1947] K.B. 130, appld. [para. 66].

Combe v. Combe, [1951] 2 K.B. 215; [1951] 1 All E.R. 767, appld. [para. 72].

Conwest Exploration Co. Ltd. et al. v. Letain (1963), 41 D.L.R.(2d) 198, appld. [para. 76].

John Burrows Ltd. v. Subsurface Surveys Ltd. et al., [1968] S.C.R. 607; 68 D.L.R.(2d) 354, appld. [para. 77].

Canadian Superior Oil Ltd. et al. v. Paddon-Hughes Development Co. Ltd. et al., [1970] S.C.R. 932; 12 D.L.R.(3d) 247; 74 W.W.R.(N.S.) 356, appld. [para. 78].

Atlantic Steel Buildings Ltd. v. The Cayman Group Ltd., Motion Tire Ltd., McGrath, MacGuire, Co-operative Trust Co. of Canada and Midas Realty Corp. of Canada Inc. (1982), 50 N.S.R.(2d) 609; 98 A.P.R. 609; 134 D.L.R.(3d) 316, appld. [para. 80].

Statutes Noticed:

Corporations Miscellaneous Provisions Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 100, sect. 12, sect. 13(1) [para. 48].

Municipal Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 295, sect. 45(a), sect. 45(b) [para. 35]; sect. 74(g), sect. 78(az) [para. 44]; sect. 99(5), sect. 156 [para. 47].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Coote, Brian, The Essence of Contract, [1988] 1 J.C.L. 92; [1989] 1 J.C.L. 183 [para. 62].

Rogers, Law of Canadian Municipal Corporations (2nd Ed. 1971), vol. 2, pp. 1035-1036 [para. 42]; 1038 [paras. 52, 62].

Counsel:

K.A. MacInnis, Q.C., for the plaintiffs;

H.A. MacIsaac and H. MacIsaac, for the defendant.

This case was heard on November 21-24, 28-30, December 1, 1989 and April 2-6, 1990, at Port Hood, Nova Scotia, before Nathanson, J., of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on July 3, 1990: