Livingston v. Apogee Properties Inc.

Livingston v. Apogee Properties Inc.

Motion to re-open dismissed because the proposed evidence was not new and was reasonably available before the close of the claimants' case, the claimants themselves had testified about the bent pipe, the proposed witnesses had no direct observation and were not essential to rebut a non-suit, and the interests of finality and the court's statutory mandate outweighed the claimants' request.

Citation
2016 NSSM 43
Parties
Claimant: James D. Livingston; Claimant: Sharon A. Livingston; Defendant: Apogee Properties Inc.; Defendant: Rick Findlay
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Court Claim / Interim Ruling on Motion to Re Open After Claimants Closed Their Case; Before Defendant's Case
Outcome
Claimants' motion to re-open dismissed; matter to proceed with defendant's case
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Warranty, Evidence, Motion to Re Open, Non Suit, Finality of Proceedings
Source Language
English
Civil Property Contract Tort Procedural Law Misrepresentation Warranty Evidence +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James D. Livingston

Claimant

Sharon A. Livingston

Claimant

Apogee Properties Inc.

Defendant

Rick Findlay

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Court Claim / Interim Ruling on Motion to Re Open After Claimants Closed Their Case; Before Defendant's Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants should be permitted to re-open their case after closing
  2. 2 Whether proposed evidence (Halifax Water employees) was new or reasonably available earlier
  3. 3 Whether allowing re-opening would prejudice the defendant

Ratio Decidendi

Motion to re-open dismissed because the proposed evidence was not new and was reasonably available before the close of the claimants' case, the claimants themselves had testified about the bent pipe, the proposed witnesses had no direct observation and were not essential to rebut a non-suit, and the interests of finality and the court's statutory mandate outweighed the claimants' request.

Court Disposition

Claimants' motion to re-open dismissed; matter to proceed with defendant's case

Orders

  • Claimants' motion to re-open dismissed.
  • Proceed to defendant Apogee Properties Inc.'s case.