Horn Abbott Ltd. et al. v. Reeves, (1999) 182 N.S.R.(2d) 278 (SC)

• Judge: Hood, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: October 07, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: (1999), 182 N.S.R.(2d) 278 (SC)

Horn Abbott Ltd. v. Reeves (1999), 182 N.S.R.(2d) 278 (SC);

 563 A.P.R. 278

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. MR.025

Horn Abbott Ltd., Charles Scott Abbott, Christopher Haney, John Haney and Edward Martin Werner (plaintiffs) v. Douglas Arthur Reeves (defendant)

(S.H. No. 156843)

Indexed As: Horn Abbott Ltd. et al. v. Reeves

Nova Scotia Supreme Court

Hood, J.

November 1, 1999.

Summary:

Wall sued Horn Abbott et al., claiming that he was the true inventor of a board game (Trivial Pursuit). Horn Abbott et al. subsequently sued Reeves (a witness in the Wall action), alleging that he conspired with others to falsely claim that Wall was the true inventor. Reeves applied to either dismiss the action or to have it stayed pending the con­clusion of the Wall action.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court dismissed the application.

Practice - Topic 4157

Discovery - General principles - Collat­eral use of discovery information (implied undertaking rule) - Wall sued the defend­ants claiming that he was the true inventor of a board game - The defendants sued Reeves (a witness in the Wall action), alleging that he conspired with others to falsely claim that Wall was the true inven­tor - Reeves applied to dismiss the action or stay it pending the conclusion of the Wall action - Reeves submitted that the action was based on his discovery evidence in the Wall action and the implied under­taking rule required that the action be stayed - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court dismissed the application - Reeves' in­volvement in the Wall action was in the pub­lic domain (highly publi­cized case) or could have been dis­covered other­wise than through the evi­dence Reeves gave in dis­covery in the Wall action - The implied undertaking rule did not apply to warrant a stay - See para­graphs 26 to 38.

Practice - Topic 5276

Trials - General - Stay of proceedings - Stay of trial - Wall sued the defendants claiming that he was the true inventor of a board game - The defendants sued Reeves (a witness in the Wall action), alleging that he conspired with others to falsely claim that Wall was the true inven­tor - Reeves applied to dismiss the action or stay it pend­ing the conclusion of the Wall action -The Nova Scotia Supreme Court refused to stay the action pending comple­tion of the Wall action - Reeves was not a party to the Wall action - The cause of action was not the same - The result in the Wall action would not necessarily determine the result in this action - See paragraphs 39 to 48.

Practice - Topic 5277.1

Trials - General - Stay of proceedings - Abuse of process - [See Practice - Topic 5361 ].

Practice - Topic 5361

Dismissal of action - Grounds - General and want of prosecution - Abuse of legal process - Wall sued the defendants claim­ing that he was the true inventor of a board game - The defendants sued Reeves (a witness in the Wall action), alleging that he conspired with others to falsely claim that Wall was the true inven­tor - Reeves applied to dismiss the action or stay it pend­ing the conclusion of the Wall action -The Nova Scotia Supreme Court de­clined to dismiss the action - There was no abuse of process (rule 14.25(1)) - This was not a re-litigation of a matter and the action was not brought for an improper purpose (i.e., other than the assertion of legitimate rights) - For the same reason, the court declined to grant a stay under s. 41(e) of the Judicature Act - See para­graphs 1 to 25.

Cases Noticed:

Martini v. Wrathall (1999), 180 N.S.R.(2d) 38; 557 A.P.R. 38 (C.A.), dist. [para. 2].

Sherman v. Giles (1994), 137 N.S.R.(2d) 52; 391 A.P.R. 52 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

ABN Ambro Bank Canada v. Collins Barrow et al. (1996), 157 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 462 A.P.R. 1 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 13].

Lang Michener Lash Johnston v. Fabien (1987), 59 O.R.(2d) 535 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 14].

MacCulloch (Bankrupt), Re (1992), 115 N.S.R.(2d) 131; 314 A.P.R. 131; 14 C.B.R.(3d) 48 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 14].

Sezerman v. Youle (1996), 150 N.S.R.(2d) 52; 436 A.P.R. 52 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Chapel Island Band Council v. MacKinnon (1996), 152 N.S.R.(2d) 81; 442 A.P.R. 81 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 39].

MacDonald v. Wedderburn (1998), 169 N.S.R.(2d) 389; 508 A.P.R. 389 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

Solomon v. Smith and Montreal Trust Co. (1987), 49 Man.R.(2d) 252; 22 C.P.C.(2d) 12 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

Bomac Construction Ltd. et al. v. Steven­son et al., [1986] 5 W.W.R. 21; 48 Sask.R. 62 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

Global Petroleum Corp. v. CBI Industries Inc. et al. (1997), 158 N.S.R.(2d) 203; 466 A.P.R. 203 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

Mon-Oil Ltd. v. Canada (1989), 27 F.T.R. 50 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 46].

Statutes Noticed:

Civil Procedure Rules (N.S.), rule 14.25(1)(b), rule 14.25(1)(d) [para. 12].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Laskin, John B., The Implied Undertaking in Ontario (1989-90), 11 Adv. Q. 298, p. 298 [para. 31].

Counsel:

Kevin A. MacDonald, for the plaintiffs;

William L. Ryan, Q.C., for the defendant.

This application was heard on October 7, 1999, in Chambers, before Hood, J., of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, whose follow­ing November 1, 1999, oral decision was released on February 29, 2000.