Irving (J.D.) Ltd. v. Balcom et al.,

• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Judge: Giles
• Neutral Citation: 2005 NSSM 6
• Citation: 2005 NSSM 6,(2005), 241 N.S.R.(2d) 59 (SmCl),241 NSR(2d) 59,(2005), 241 NSR(2d) 59 (SmCl),241 N.S.R.(2d) 59
• Date: 23 October 2005
• Court: Small Claims Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)

Irving Ltd. v. Balcom (2005), 241 N.S.R.(2d) 59 (SmCl);

    767 A.P.R. 59

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. MR.013

Kent Homes, A Division of J.D. Irving Limited (claimant) v. Byron Balcom, AndersonSinclair, Barristers and Solicitors and Hallmark Homes Limited (defendants)

(S.C.C.H. 250744; 2005 NSSM 6)

Indexed As: Irving (J.D.) Ltd. v. Balcom et al.

Nova Scotia Small Claims Court

Giles, Chief Adjudicator

October 23, 2005.

Summary:

Defendants in a small claims action pleaded only that they disputed the claim. They counterclaimed for $100 in general damages. The claimant applied for an order directing the defendants to particularize their defence. The defendants asserted that they were not obligated to file and serve any form of defence or counterclaim beyond a general denial. The defendants filed an amended statement of defence which simply repeated and denied the claimant's allegations.

The Nova Scotia Small Claims Court held that the defendant's pleading remained insufficient and ordered that they file and serve a properly drafted defence and counterclaim.

Practice - Topic 9757

Small claims - Pleadings - General - Defendants in a small claims action pleaded only that they disputed the claim - They counterclaimed for general damages - The claimant applied for an order directing the defendants to particularize their defence -The defendants asserted that they were not obligated to file and serve any form of defence or counterclaim beyond a general denial -The defendants filed an amended statement of defence which simply repeated and denied the claimant's allegations - The Nova Scotia Small Claims Court rejected the defendants' assertion and ordered that they file and serve a properly drafted defence and counterclaim - The defendants' pleading was inconsistent with the general requirements of s. 2 of the Small Claims Court Act, the common law applicable to pleadings and Civil Procedure Rules 14.04, 14.11 and 14.14, which rules had been held to apply to pleadings in the Small Claims Court.

Cases Noticed:

Waterview Machine Works Ltd. v. Peters (1988), 88 N.S.R.(2d) 232; 225 A.P.R. 232 (Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 15].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Perell, Paul M., The Essentials of Pleading (1995), 17 Adv. Q. 205, pp. 205 to 223 [para. 11].

Counsel:

[None disclosed]

This application was heard by Giles, Chief Adjudicator, of the Nova Scotia Small Claims Court, who delivered the following decision at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on October 23, 2005.