Keltic Transportation Inc. et al. v. Montgomery et al., 2014 NSSC 414

• Judge: Hood, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: December 01, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: 2014 NSSC 414;(2014), 352 N.S.R.(2d) 102 (SC)

Keltic Transportation v. Montgomery (2014), 352 N.S.R.(2d) 102 (SC);

    1112 A.P.R. 102

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. DE.002

Keltic Transportation Inc. and Keltic Freight Services Inc. (plaintiffs) v. David Montgomery and Fulcrum Transportation Management Limited (defendants)

(Hfx. No. 429987; 2014 NSSC 414)

Indexed As: Keltic Transportation Inc. et al. v. Montgomery et al.

Nova Scotia Supreme Court

Hood, J.

December 1, 2014.

Summary:

Keltic Transportation Inc. and Keltic Freight Services Inc. (Keltic) provided transportation services in Ontario and Atlantic Canada. Montgomery was a former employee of Keltic and now president of Fulcrum Transportation Management Ltd. During his employment with Keltic, Montgomery signed two non-solicitation agreements. Keltic claimed that Montgomery solicited work from Keltic's customers contrary to the restrictive covenants. Keltic sought an interlocutory injunction restraining the activities of Montgomery and Fulcrum Transportation Management Ltd. (the defendants).

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, in a decision reported 352 N.S.R.(2d) 87; 1112 A.P.R. 87, refused to grant the interlocutory injunction. The defendants sought lump sum costs, arguing the tariffs did not provide a substantial contribution towards their costs.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court declined to award lump sum costs and awarded costs under Tariff C.

Practice - Topic 7117

Costs - Party and party costs - Entitlement to party and party costs - Special orders - Lump sum in lieu of taxed costs - The plaintiffs sought an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from allegedly breaching non-solicitation agreements - A chambers judge refused to grant the injunction - The defendants sought lump sum costs, arguing that the tariffs did not provide a substantial contribution towards their costs - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court discussed generally when lump sum costs could be awarded - Lump sum costs were not warranted because this was not a case where "exceptional legal services" were required - This was a half-day chambers motion - The matter was not particularly complex - There were no public interest issues - There was no pre-chambers process - The court was able to determine the question of law based on the authorities cited - There was no misconduct - Costs were awarded under Tariff C ($1,000).

Practice - Topic 7368

Costs - Costs of interlocutory proceedings - Interim or interlocutory injunctions - [See Practice - Topic 7117 ].

Cases Noticed:

Richards v. Richards et al. (2013), 335 N.S.R.(2d) 203; 1060 A.P.R. 203; 2013 NSSC 269, refd to. [para. 10].

Armour Group Ltd. v. Halifax (Regional Municipality) (2008), 267 N.S.R.(2d) 350; 853 A.P.R. 350; 2008 NSSC 123, refd to. [para. 10].

Bevis et al. v. CTV Inc. et al. (2004), 228 N.S.R.(2d) 34; 723 A.P.R. 34; 2004 NSSC 209, refd to. [para. 16].

Smith v. Michelin North America (Canada) Inc. (2008), 262 N.S.R.(2d) 337; 839 A.P.R. 337; 2008 CarswellNS 102; 2008 NSSC 66, refd to. [para. 17].

Survival Systems Training Ltd. v. Survival Systems Ltd. et al. (2012), 316 N.S.R.(2d) 388; 1002 A.P.R. 388; 2012 NSSC 202, refd to. [para. 23].

Front Line Safety Ltd. v. MacKenzie et al. (2002), 211 N.S.R.(2d) 25; 662 A.P.R. 25; 2003 NSSC 15, refd to. [para. 24].

Cana International Distributing Inc. v. Standard Innovation Corp., [2011] O.T.C. Uned. 752; 2011 ONSC 752, refd to. [para. 26].

Statutes Noticed:

Civil Procedure Rules (N.S.), rule 77.05(1) [para. 6]; Tariff C [para. 7].

Rules of Civil Procedure (N.S.) - see Civil Procedure Rules (N.S.).

Rules of Court (N.S.) - see Civil Procedure Rules (N.S.).

Counsel:

Richard M. Dunlop, for the plaintiffs;

Jeff Aucoin, for the defendants.

This costs matter was dealt with by way of written submissions by Hood, J., of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, who delivered the following decision on December 1, 2014.