Society for the Prevention of Cruelty v. Cape Breton Humane Society et al., (2012) 315 N.S.R.(2d) 1 (SC)

• Judge: Murray, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: January 19, 2012
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: (2012), 315 N.S.R.(2d) 1 (SC);2012 NSSC 128

SPC v. Humane Soc. (2012), 315 N.S.R.(2d) 1 (SC);

    998 A.P.R. 1

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. MR.070

Society for the Prevention of Cruelty, a body corporate (applicant) v. The Cape Breton Branch - Nova Scotia for the Prevention of Cruelty, operating under the name of the Cape Breton Humane Society, and Ann Johnston, Mel Neville, Kay Violande, Wayne Kenney, Michael Mombourquette, Whitfield Best, Leo MacIsaaac, Dan Ellis and Patricia Rose (respondents)

(Syd. No. 370359; 2012 NSSC 128)

Indexed As: Society for the Prevention of Cruelty v. Cape Breton Humane Society et al.

Nova Scotia Supreme Court

Murray, J.

January 19, 2012.

Summary:

The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty (SPC) applied for a declaration that the former members of the Cape Breton Branch of the SPC, now operating as the Cape Breton Humane Society (CBHS), were no longer members of the board of directors of that branch. They also sought a declaration that the property formerly owned by the Cape Breton Branch was now owned by the SPC. The SPC moved for an injunction against CBHS requiring them to vacate the premises and to turn over possession of all property owned by the former Cape Breton Branch of the SPC.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court granted the injunction.

Equity - Topic 1482

Equitable principles respecting relief - Clean hands doctrine - Application of - The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty (SPC) applied for a declaration that the former members of the Cape Breton Branch (CBB) of the SPC, now operating as the Cape Breton Humane Society (CBHS), were no longer members of the board of directors of that branch - They also sought a declaration that the property formerly owned by the CBB was now owned by the provincial SPC - The SPC moved for an interim injunction against CBHS requiring them to vacate the premises and to turn over possession of all property owned by the former CBB - The CBHS asserted that the SPC did not come to court with clean hands, referring to a failure to follow its own bylaws - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court stated that to apply this doctrine there had to be a direct link between the wrong alleged and the remedy sought - Equity had to provide some protection to the SPC where, in spite of a technical breach of the bylaws, their intentions were valid and they believed that they were attempting to hold the CBHS to a standard to provide animals with an adequate level of care - It would be improper to apply the doctrine if, once applied, it rendered an unjust result - The enforcement of the Animal Control Act's animal care standards was paramount - The court was not prepared to deny the SPC a remedy that they would otherwise be entitled to because of the doctrine - See paragraphs 80 to 82.

Injunctions - Topic 1604.2

Interlocutory or interim injunctions - Clean hands doctrine - [See Equity - Topic 1482 ].

Injunctions - Topic 1606

Interlocutory or interim injunctions - General principles - Balance of convenience - The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty (SPC) applied for a declaration that the former members of the Cape Breton Branch (CBB) of the SPC, now operating as the Cape Breton Humane Society (CBHS), were no longer members of the board of directors of that branch - They also sought a declaration that the property formerly owned by the CBB was now owned by the provincial SPC - The SPC moved for an interim injunction against CBHS requiring them to vacate the premises and to turn over possession of all property owned by the former CBB - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court granted the injunction - There were numerous serious issues to be resolved - The ownership issue alone presented a serious issue which was neither frivolous nor vexatious - There was also a serious issue respecting procedural fairness - There was irreparable harm - The SPC's concerns about animal welfare had merit - A "parvo" outbreak at the shelter showed that shelter management was an ongoing day to day issue and was constant - Loss or injury to animals was harm that could not be compensated in damages - Consideration of harm involved a weighing of risks as opposed to certainties - Animals in distress or injured could not be measured in monetary terms - There was evidence that, if accepted, indicated a risk of distress - There was a meaningful risk of harm - There was also a concern about the SPC's ability to carry on its business/legislative mandate - The harm came in the form of public concern regarding the shelter and could not be measured in monetary terms - If the injunction was granted, CBHS would be inconvenienced - However, if it was denied, the SPC would be significantly hindered in its ability to meets its legislative mandate - Although the status quo favoured the CBHS, the SPC was the principal welfare agency in the province and legislatively recognized as playing a special role in that area - That tipped the balance of convenience in SPC's favour - See paragraphs 36 to 79.

Injunctions - Topic 1609

Interlocutory or interim injunctions - Circumstances when injunction will issue - [See Injunctions - Topic 1606 ].

Injunctions - Topic 1616

Interlocutory or interim injunctions - Arguable issues of law involved or serious question to be tried - [See Injunctions - Topic 1606 ].

Injunctions - Topic 1743

Interlocutory or interim injunctions - Sufficiency of damages in lieu of injunction - What constitutes adequacy or sufficiency of damages - [See Injunctions - Topic 1606 ].

Injunctions - Topic 1779.9

Interlocutory or interim injunctions - Preservation of status quo - Pending outcome of action - [See Injunctions - Topic 1606 ].

Injunctions - Topic 1802

Interlocutory or interim injunctions - Requirement of irreparable injury - What constitutes - [See Injunctions - Topic 1606 ].

Cases Noticed:

Burke v. Cape Breton (Regional Municipality) et al. (2011), 302 N.S.R.(2d) 297; 955 A.P.R. 297; 2011 NSSC 169, refd to. [para. 32].

RJR-MacDonald Inc. et Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Canada (Procureur général), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311; 164 N.R. 1; 60 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 32].

Colchester Young Men's Christian Association v. YMCA Canada, 2000 NSSC 180, refd to. [para. 33].

American Cyanamid v. Ethicon Ltd., [1975] 1 All E.R. 504, refd to. [para. 33].

Noreco Inc. v. Laserworks Computer Services Inc. et al. (1994), 136 N.S.R.(2d) 309; 388 A.P.R. 309 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 34].

Hill v. University College of Cape Breton (1991), 104 N.S.R.(2d) 285; 283 A.P.R. 285 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 38].

Lakeside Colony of Hutterian Brethren et al. v. Hofer et al., [1992] 3 S.C.R. 165; 142 N.R. 241; 81 Man.R.(2d) 1; 30 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 51].

Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick - see New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir.

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir (2008), 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 54].

Fulton Insurance Agencies Ltd. v. Purdy (1990), 100 N.S.R.(2d) 341; 272 A.P.R. 341 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].

Laplante v. Saskatchewan Society for the Prevention of Cruelty, 2011 CarswellSask 251, refd to. [para. 66].

Swende v. Halifax Student Housing Society, [1985] N.S.J. No. 199, refd to. [para. 80].

Ironworks Gym Ltd. v. Derby Holding Ltd. et al. (1997), 162 Sask.R. 174 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 80].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Sharpe, Robert, J., Injunctions and Specific Performance (4th Ed.), generally [para. 55].

Counsel:

Robert Sampson, Q.C., for the respondents;

Dennis James, for the applicant.

This motion was heard at Sydney, Nova Scotia, on January 4-6, 10, 12 and 13, 2012, by Murray, J., of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, who delivered the following judgment orally January 19, 2012, and in writing on March 22, 2012.