Piercey et al. v. Board of Education of Lunenburg County District, (1997) 162 N.S.R.(2d) 315 (CA)

• Judge: Bateman, J.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: October 29, 1997
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: (1997), 162 N.S.R.(2d) 315 (CA)

Piercey v. Lunenburg School Bd. (1997), 162 N.S.R.(2d) 315 (CA);

    485 A.P.R. 315

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1997] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. NO.005

Lunenburg County District School Board (appellant/applicant) v. Roy Eugene Piercey, J.R. Milligan and Kathleen MacDonald (respondents)

(C.A. 141911)

Indexed As: Piercey et al. v. Board of Education of Lunenburg County District

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

Bateman, J.A.

October 29, 1997.

Summary:

Piercey, a high school student, fell and became a quadriplegic while participating in a planned game on a school outing. He sued, among others, the Lunenburg County District School Board. A jury found for Piercey and awarded damages of $2,718,562. The School Board appealed and applied for a stay of execution pending appeal.

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, per Bateman, J.A., in Chambers, refused the stay but ordered Piercey to "forthwith, provide to the court a written undertaking to hold at least $2,000,000 of the balance owing (and the interest earned thereon) in a segregated account and conservatively invested, pending disposition of the appeal".

Practice - Topic 8954

Appeals - Stay of proceedings pending appeal - What constitutes "irreparable harm" to unsuccessful party - Piercey was awarded $2,718,562 - The defendant ap­pealed and sought a stay of execution pending appeal - The defendant wanted to withhold $2,000,000 - Piercey offered to segregate and keep safe the money - The defendant argued that irreparable harm would result if it paid the money, won the appeal and Piercey were unable to repay - Piercey was "most probably an unsophisti­cated investor" - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal refused the stay on condition that Piercey hold the $2,000,000 and the in­terest earned thereon "in a segregated account and conservatively invested" - The court stated that, but for Piercey's offer to segregate and keep safe the money, it "would have been satisfied that the appel­lant had shown irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured the stay".

Practice - Topic 8956

Appeals - Stay of proceedings pending appeal - Stay of proceedings on terms - [See Practice - Topic 8954 ].

Practice - Topic 8958

Appeals - Stay of proceedings pending appeal - Balance of convenience and jus­tice - [See Practice - Topic 8954 ].

Cases Noticed:

Coughlan et al. v. Westminer Canada Ltd. et al. (1993), 125 N.S.R.(2d) 171; 349 A.P.R. 171 (C.A.), consd. [para. 8].

Fulton Insurance Agencies Ltd. v. Purdy (1990), 100 N.S.R.(2d) 341; 272 A.P.R. 341 (C.A.), consd. [para. 9].

Dillon v. Kelly (1995), 145 N.S.R.(2d) 194; 418 A.P.R. 194 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

B. & G. Groceries Ltd. v. Economical Mutual Insurance Co. (1992), 112 N.S.R.(2d) 322; 307 A.P.R. 322 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Clark v. O'Brien and Clark (1995), 140 N.S.R.(2d) 147; 399 A.P.R. 147, refd to. [para. 14].

Statutes Noticed:

Civil Procedure Rules (N.S.), rule 62.10 [para. 7].

Counsel:

Scott C. Norton, for the appellant;

Jean McKenna, for the respondent, Pier­cey;

Darlene Jamieson, for the respondent, MacDonald.

This application was heard in Chambers, on October 23, 1997, by Bateman, J.A., of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal.

Bateman, J.A., delivered the following decision on October 29, 1997.