Canada (Attorney General) v. Maritime Harbours Society et al., 2003 NSSC 26

• Judge: Moir, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: January 29, 2003
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: 2003 NSSC 26;(2003), 212 N.S.R.(2d) 140 (SC)

Can. (A.G.) v. Maritime Harbours (2003), 212 N.S.R.(2d) 140 (SC);

 665 A.P.R. 140

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. MR.001

The Attorney General of Canada, in Right of the Minister of Transport (plaintiff) v. Marineserve.mg Inc., a body corporate, and Maritime Harbours Society, an incorporated society (defendants)

(S.H. 173182; 2003 NSSC 26)

Indexed As: Canada (Attorney General) v. Maritime Harbours Society et al.

Nova Scotia Supreme Court

Moir, J.

February 7, 2003.

Summary:

The federal government and Maritime Harbours Society (MHS) entered into agree­ments by which MHS assumed responsibility for management of the Port of Digby and the government was to make payments to MHS. Marineserve.mg Inc. contracted with MHS to carry out work in relation to the port. The government sued MHS for breach of con­tract, alleging that it expended monies in violation of their agreements. The govern­ment also sued Marineserve for conspiracy, inducing breach of contract and interference with economic relations. The action against MHS was stayed in favour of the arbitration process mandated in the agreements between the government and MHS. Marineserve applied for a stay of the action against it until the arbitration between MHS and the government was concluded.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court dismissed the application.

Editor's note: For prior decisions in this matter see 197 N.S.R.(2d) 322; 616 A.P.R. 322, 204 N.S.R.(2d) 385; 639 A.P.R. 385, and 210 N.S.R.(2d) 72; 659 A.P.R. 72.

Practice - Topic 5275

Trials - General - Stay of proceedings - General - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court stated that "[t]he power to stay proceedings is ancient and it is closely connected to the inherent jurisdiction of the Court to control its own processes. I do not read the au­thorities to which counsel referred me as having restricted the exercise of the power to cases of abuse of process. The power is to be approached with great caution. Its use is exceptional. A case for its use must be clearly established. These cautions are indicated by the gravity of shutting a plain­tiff from access to the court or delaying the plaintiff's progress toward trial. The cautions stated in so many authorities do not indicate categorical restrictions upon the discretion" - See paragraph 6.

Practice - Topic 5277

Trials - General - Stay of proceedings - When available - The federal government and Maritime Harbours Society (MHS) entered into agreements by which MHS assumed responsibility for the Port of Digby and the government was to make payments to MHS - Marineserve contracted with MHS to carry out work in relation to the port - The government sued MHS for breach of contract, alleging that it expended monies in violation of their agreements - The government also sued Marineserve for conspiracy, inducing breach of contract and interference with economic relations - The action against MHS was stayed in favour of the arbitra­tion process mandated in the agreements between the government and MHS - Marineserve applied for a stay of the action against it until the arbitration between MHS and the government was concluded - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court dismissed the application - The re­sult in the MHS arbitration would not necessarily put an end to the claims against Marineserve - It was doubtful that issue estoppel would apply - Even if it did, all of the tort claims would not be disposed of - Marineserve's delay in seeking a stay, many months after the stay had been granted in respect of MHS, was also a factor against granting a stay.

Practice - Topic 5282

Trials - General - Stay of proceedings - Time for application - [See Practice - Topic 5277 ].

Practice - Topic 5283

Trials - General - Stay of proceedings - Jurisdiction - [See Practice - Topic 5275 ].

Cases Noticed:

Global Petroleum Corp. et al. v. CBI In­dustries Inc. et al. (1997), 158 N.S.R.(2d) 203; 466 A.P.R. 203 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Fruit of the Loom Inc. v. Chateau Lingerie Mfg. Co. Ltd. (1984), 70 C.P.R.(2d) 274 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 6].

Horn Abbott Ltd. et al. v. Reeves (1999), 182 N.S.R.(2d) 278; 563 A.P.R. 278 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 6].

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Ria-Mar Fisheries Ltd. (1985), 71 N.S.R.(2d) 446; 171 A.P.R. 446 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 6].

Boart Sweden AB v. NYA Stromner AB (1988), 41 B.L.R. 295 (Ont. S.C.), consd. [para. 7].

BWV Investments Ltd. v. Saskferco Products Inc. et al. (1994), 125 Sask.R. 286; 81 W.A.C. 286; 119 D.L.R.(4th) 577 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Bank of British Columbia v. Sitko (1986), 68 A.R. 65 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 8].

Counsel:

Harvey L. Morrison and Kevin Donald Gibson, for the defendant/applicant, Marineserve.mg Inc.;

John P. Merrick, Q.C., and Sean Foreman, for the plaintiff/respondent, the Attorney General of Canada;

John E. MacDonell, for the defendant, Maritime Harbours Society (watching brief).

This application was heard on January 29, 2003, at Halifax, Nova Scotia, before Moir, J., of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, who delivered the following decision on February 7, 2003.