David et al. v. Halifax (Regional Municipality) et al., 2003 NSSC 3

• Judge: Nathanson, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: January 09, 2003
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: 2003 NSSC 3;(2003), 211 N.S.R.(2d) 283 (SC)

David v. Halifax (2003), 211 N.S.R.(2d) 283 (SC);

 662 A.P.R. 283

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. FE.007

Marty David et al. [names of other plaintiffs omitted] (plaintiffs) v. The Regional Municipality of Halifax, Halifax Regional Water Commission, Carl Yates and Reginald Rankin (defendants)

(S.H. 162318; 2003 NSSC 3)

Indexed As: David et al. v. Halifax (Regional Municipality) et al.

Nova Scotia Supreme Court

Nathanson, J.

January 9, 2003.

Summary:

The defendants applied for a non-suit at the end of the plaintiff's case.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court allowed the motion in part.

Contracts - Topic 1205

Formation of contract - Offer - What con­stitutes an offer (incl. counter-offer) - A municipality approved a proposed water project in an area (the community) and di­rected that three payment options be sent to all homes in the community - A copy of this resolution, plus resulting financing scenarios, were sent to Sparks, the co­ordinator for the community's develop­ment association - The plaintiffs, property owners in the community, claimed that the municipality's resolution was an offer to the plaintiffs - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court disagreed - There was nothing in the language of the resolution constituting an offer to the plaintiffs or revealing an inten­tion to make an offer to the plaintiffs - See paragraph 33.

Estoppel - Topic 1390

Estoppel in pais (by conduct) - Circum­stances where doctrine not applicable - Lack of rights or agreement which may be enforced - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court stated that one requirement for promissory estoppel was the existence of a binding legal relationship between the parties - See paragraph 57.

Municipal Law - Topic 405

Councils - Resolutions - Effect of - [See Contracts - Topic 1205 ].

Municipal Law - Topic 426

Councils - Decisions of - Reconsideration of - The plaintiff property owners sued the Halifax Regional Municipality (HRM) alleging, inter alia, that the HRM had entered into a contract with them for the provision of water services - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court held that 1) only HRM Council could set frontage fees, and then only by bylaw; 2) HRM Council could reconsider and amend its decisions at any time; 3) the doctrine of ostensible authority did not apply to municipalities; 4) HRM Council could not delegate its authority to set frontage charges; 5) HRM Council did not have power to authorize a rebate to a taxpayer; 6) HRM Council did not have the power to contract that it would in future pass a bylaw to rebate frontage fees or return savings to a com­munity, as that would fetter its statutory power - See paragraph 41.

Municipal Law - Topic 1586

Powers of municipalities - Exercise of powers - Prohibition against fettering of - [See Municipal Law - Topic 426 ].

Municipal Law - Topic 1636

Powers of municipalities - Delegation of powers - Prohibition against delegation of legislative powers - [See Municipal Law -Topic 426 ].

Municipal Law - Topic 2105.1

Municipal taxation or levies - General - Discounts, exemptions, rebates or cancel­lation of taxes - [See Municipal Law - Topic 426 ].

Municipal Law - Topic 2284

Contracts by a municipality - Power of officers and agents to bind corporation - Apparent authority - [See Municipal Law - Topic 426 ].

Torts - Topic 5201

Interference with economic relations - Contacts - General - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court held that the tort of inter­ference in economic relations was an ex­tension of the tort of inducing breach of contract - See paragraph 47.

Cases Noticed:

J.W. Cowie Engineering Ltd. v. Allen, Smith, Keeping (1982), 52 N.S.R.(2d) 321; 106 A.P.R. 321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 2].

Silver's Garage Ltd. v. Town of Bridge­water, [1970] S.C.R. 577; 2 N.S.R.(2d) 474; 17 D.L.R.(3d) 1, consd. [para. 42].

Safeway Shouldering Ltd. v. Nackawic (Town) (2001), 234 N.B.R.(2d) 356; 604 A.P.R. 356 (C.A.), dist. [para. 43].

Berube v. Wingrowick (1997), 205 A.R. 70 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 47].

Koeppan v. LoVecchio, [2001] A.J. No. 619, refd to. [para. 51].

Norfolk v. Roberts (1913), 28 O.L.R. 593, affd. (1914), 50 S.C.R. 283, refd to. [para. 51].

Campbell et al. v. Inverness (County) (1990), 98 N.S.R.(2d) 330; 263 A.P.R. 330 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 57].

Mount Sinai Hospital Center et al. v. Que­bec (Minister of Health and Social Ser­vices), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 281; 271 N.R. 104, dist. [para. 60].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Cross on Evidence (4th Ed.), p. 66 [para. 3].

Fridman, G.H.L., Law of Contract (4th Ed. 1999), p. 132 [para. 56].

Counsel:

A. Douglas Tupper, Q.C., and Andrew Fraser, for the defendants;

Mary Jane McGinty and Srinivansen Pillay, Q.C., for the plaintiffs.

This motion was heard in Halifax, N.S., on December 3, 4 and 5, 2002, by Nathanson, J., of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, who gave his decision orally on January 9, 2003, and in writing on January 15, 2003.