Iform Inc. v. Rossignol et al., 2010 NSSC 478

• Judge: Hood, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: November 02, 2010
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: 2010 NSSC 478;(2010), 299 N.S.R.(2d) 73 (SC)

Iform Inc. v. Rossignol (2010), 299 N.S.R.(2d) 73 (SC);

    947 A.P.R. 73

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2011] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. FE.008

Iform Inc., a body corporate (plaintiff) v. Real Rossignol, Principal Developments Limited, a body corporate, and Peter Metlej (defendants)

(Hfx. No. 333223; 2010 NSSC 478)

Indexed As: Iform Inc. v. Rossignol et al.

Nova Scotia Supreme Court

Hood, J.

November 5, 2010.

Summary:

The plaintiff sued the defendants and obtained a certificate of lis pendens against the lands of one of the defendants (Principal). The certificate of lis pendens was filed pursuant to s. 58 of the Land Registration Act. Principal moved to have the certificate of lis pendens vacated.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court held that the lis pendens was a nullity because of lack of notice to the landowner. Alternatively, if the lis pendens was not a nullity, it should be discharged because the plaintiff's claim did not create an interest in land for which a certificate of lis pendens should issue.

Real Property - Topic 7846

Title - Registration of instruments, etc. - Lis pendens or certificate of pending litigation - Practice - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court held that notwithstanding that there was no requirement under the Land Registration Act of notifying a landowner of a filing of a certificate of lis pendens that was granted by a prothonotary, where a certificate was filed, the person obtaining the certificate had to give notice to the landowner as soon as the lis pendens was filed - See paragraphs 1 to 30.

Real Property - Topic 7855

Title - Registration of instruments, etc. - Lis pendens or certificate of pending litigation - Vacating of - Grounds - The plaintiff sued the defendants for damages for unjust enrichment and filed a certificate of lis pendens under the Land Registration Act, s. 58 - The defendants sought to have the certificate of lis pendens filed vacated, arguing that it should not have been filed or granted in the first place, and alternatively, it did not affect an interest in land - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court held that the lis pendens was a nullity because of lack of notice to the landowner - However the court opined that if it was wrong on that conclusion and the lis pendens was valid, it should be discharged because the plaintiff's claim did not create an interest in land for which a certificate of lis pendens should issue - See paragraphs 31 to 62.

Cases Noticed:

Saulnier Estate v. Keating (1988), 89 N.S.R.(2d) 179; 227 A.P.R. 179 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 7].

Dempsey et al. v. Dempsey (2008), 266 N.S.R.(2d) 196; 851 A.P.R. 196; 2008 NSSC 137, refd to. [para. 9].

Little Island Fisheries Ltd. et al. v. Royal Harbour Seafoods Inc. et al. (2009), 285 N.S.R.(2d) 103; 905 A.P.R. 103; 2009 NSSC 300, refd to. [para. 11].

Society of Lloyd's v. Van Snick et al. (2000), 182 N.S.R.(2d) 64; 563 A.P.R. 64 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 25].

Bevans v. Bevans, 1993 CarswellAlta 871 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Procopia v. D'Abbondanza, [1970] 1 O.R. 127; 1969 CarswsellOnt 952 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Fisher v. Campbell Custom Homes Ltd. et al., [2007] Sask.R. Uned. 109; 2007 SKCA 109, refd to. [para. 27].

Sobey's Stores Ltd. v. Johnston, Capital Enterprises Ltd., Enterprise Realty Inc. and Park Terrace Holdings Inc. (1984), 52 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 139; 153 A.P.R. 139 (P.E.I.S.C.), refd to. [para. 49].

Murphy Oil Co. et al. v. Predator Corp. et al. (2006), 408 A.R. 98; 67 Alta. L.R.(4th) 315 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 56].

Soulos v. Korkontzilas et al. (1997), 212 N.R. 1; 84 O.A.C. 390 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 57].

Becker v. Pettkus, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 834; 34 N.R. 384, refd to. [para. 57].

CCS Corp. v. Secure Energy Services Inc. et al. (2010), 495 A.R. 191; 2010 ABQB 466, refd to. [para. 58].

Statutes Noticed:

Land Registration Act, S.N.S. 2001, c. 6, sect. 58(1), sect. 58(2), sect. 58(3) [para. 2].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Anger and Honsberger, The Law of Real Property (3rd Ed. 2006) (2007 Looseleaf), c. 34:100 [paras. 12, 34].

Counsel:

Blair Mitchell, for the plaintiff;

James D. MacNeil, for the defendant, Real Rossignol;

Gavin Giles, Q.C., John Kulik, Q.C., and John DiCostanzo, for the defendants, Principal Developments Limited and Peter Metlej.

This matter was heard on November 2, 2010, in Halifax, Nova Scotia, before Hood, J., of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, who delivered an oral decision on November 5, 2010, and released a written version of the decision on February 2, 2011.