Begg v. Halifax (County)
Leave to appeal was denied because the Chambers judge did not err in principle or in the exercise of her discretion and the appellant failed to demonstrate any error of law or patent injustice warranting intervention by the Court of Appeal.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 1998 NSCA 52
- Parties
- Appellant: A. R. Begg (carrying on business as ARB RECYCLING); Respondent: Municipality of the City of Halifax; Respondent: Halifax Industrial Commission (a body corporate); Respondent: J. Michael Hanusiak
- Court
- Nova Scotia Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 6 January 1998
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Leave to Appeal (interlocutory) / Court of Appeal Decision on Leave Application
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal denied
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Adjournment, Judicial Discretion, Patent Injustice, Striking Defence, Appointment of Supervising Judge
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
A. R. Begg (carrying on business as ARB RECYCLING)
Appellant
Municipality of the City of Halifax
Respondent
Halifax Industrial Commission (a body corporate)
Respondent
J. Michael Hanusiak
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal (interlocutory) / Court of Appeal Decision on Leave Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Chambers judge erred in principle or in the exercise of her discretion in adjourning multiple applications
- 2 Whether there was any error of law or patent injustice warranting appellate intervention
- 3 Whether leave to appeal should be granted in respect of interlocutory matters including contempt and striking the defence
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal was denied because the Chambers judge did not err in principle or in the exercise of her discretion and the appellant failed to demonstrate any error of law or patent injustice warranting intervention by the Court of Appeal.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal denied
Orders
- Leave to appeal denied
- Costs to respondents in the amount of $250.00 including disbursements
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Begg v. Halifax (County) Court Court of Appeal Date 1998-01-06 Citation 1998 NSCA 52 Docket CA 142381 Judge/Registrar/Adjudicator Cromwell, Thomas A. (Honourable Justice); Roscoe, Elizabeth A. (Honourable Justice) (CA); Pugsley, Ronald N. (Honourable Justice) Document Type Decision Decision Content Date: 19980106 Docket: CA 142381 NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Cite as: Begg v. Halifax (County), 1998 NSCA 52 Roscoe, Pugsley and Cromwell, JJ.A. BETWEEN: ) ) A. R. BEGG, businessman, carrying ) Appellant on business under the name and style ) appeared in of ARB RECYCLING ) person ) Appellant ) ) - and - ) ) THE MUNICIPALITY OF THE CITY OF ) John D. MacIsaac, Q.C. HALIFAX, THE HALIFAX INDUSTRIAL ) for the Respondents COMMISSION, a body corporate and J. ) MICHAEL HANUSIAK ) ) Respondents ) ) ) ) Appeal Heard: ) January 6, 1998 ) ) ) Judgment Delivered: ) January 6, 1998 THE COURT: Leave to appeal is denied with costs to the respondents in the amount of $250.00, including disbursements, as per oral reasons for judgment of Roscoe, J.A.; Pugsley and Cromwell, JJ.A., concurring. The reasons for judgment of the Court were delivered orally by: ROSCOE, J.A.: This is an application for leave to appeal and if granted, an appeal from a decision of Justice Jill Hamilton, sitting in Supreme Court Chambers, on October 7, 1997, wherein she adjourned the hearing of several applications to October 22, 1997. The applications adjourned were four applications made by the appellant for contempt and his application to strike the defence and an application by the respondent seeking security for costs, an order requiring the appellant to appear for and be discovered, an order limiting the number of persons to be discovered by the appellant and an order appointing a supervising judge. The order also provided that if any further applications for contempt were to be made that they also be heard on October 27, 1997. After considering the record and the submissions, we have come to the unanimous conclusion that the Chambers judge did not err in principle or in the exercise of her discretion, nor has the appellant proven the existence of any error of law or patent injustice requiring the intervention of this Court. Leave to appeal is denied with costs to the respondents in the amount of $250.00, including disbursements. Roscoe, J.A. Concurred in: Pugsley, J.A. Cromwell, J.A.