Can*Sport Incorporated v. HarbourEdge Mortgage Investment Corporation

Can*Sport Incorporated v. HarbourEdge Mortgage Investment Corporation Court Court of Appeal Date 2026-01-15 Citation 2026 NSCA 2 Docket CA 535915 Judge/Registrar/Adjudicator Bryson, Peter M.S. (Honourable Justice) (CA); Bourgeois, Cindy A. (Honourable Justice) (CA); Van den Eynden, Elizabeth (Honourable Justice) (CA) Document Type Decision Decision Content Nova Scotia Court of Appeal Citation: Can*Sport Incorporated v. HarbourEdge Mortgage Investment Corporation, 2026 NSCA 2 Date: 20260115 Docket: CA 535915 Registry: Halifax Between: Can*Sport Incorporated and Lee Adamski Appellants v. HarbourEdge Mortgage Investment Corporation Respondent Judges: Bryson, Bourgeois and Van den Eynden, JJ.A. Appeal Heard: January 13, 2026, in Halifax, Nova Scotia Held: Appeal dismissed for reasons of the Court Counsel: Richard A. Bureau for the appellants Sara L. Scott and Adam R. Downie, for the respondent Reasons for judgment: [1] The appellants appeal two orders granted by Justice Ann E. Smith of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court. The first, an order dismissing claims of breach of contractual obligations, bad faith and related losses advanced by the appellants. The second, an order requiring the appellants to pay $200,000 in costs to the respondent. [2] The merits decision is reported at 2024 NSSC 98; the costs decision at 2024 NSSC 356. The relevant background giving rise to the dispute between the parties is set out by the judge in her respective decisions. [3] The judge made a number of key factual findings that underpinned her ultimate determination the respondent was not liable for any losses the appellants allegedly suffered. The judge’s comprehensive reasons clearly articulate the bases for her factual findings and liability assessment. She also canvassed the relevant law that guided her analysis. [4] It is evident the appellants are displeased with their lack of success at trial. Between their Notice of Appeal and Amended Notice of Appeal, they raised 25 grounds of appeal; one was abandoned. Several grounds of appeal raise new arguments and points of law not pled or argued in the court below. The appellants’ litany of complaints assert the judge made multiple errors when interpreting the contractual obligations between the parties and applying the duty of good faith owed to the appellants. And further, her factual and credibility findings reflect material errors as does her damage assessment. [5] To succeed on appeal, the appellants must establish the judge actually erred. Simply saying so does not make it so. We are of the unanimous view the appellants failed to demonstrate error, nor did our review of the record and impugned decisions, reveal any. The judge correctly identified and applied the governing legal principles. Her factual findings are solidly supported by the record. [6] These submissions by the respondent are apt: [1] The Appellants went to trial and lost. They are unhappy with the result. They want a do-over for the trial through this appeal. [2] Fundamentally, this is an attempt to relitigate the matter through the Court of Appeal in the hopes of obtaining a different result. However, “[a]n appeal is not simply a rehearing of the matter, nor an opportunity to have a panel of judges take a “fresh” second look at the case, in the hope of securing a different result.” MacCallum v. Langille Estate, 2022 NSCA 15 at para 12. […] [3] Rather than carefully analyzing the decision and the reasons of the trial judge to identify any errors on which this Honourable Court could credibly overturn the trial judge’s decision, the Appellants have instead advanced 25 separate grounds of appeal, hoping that some argument will be successful. [4] Many of the grounds of appeal raise new arguments or points of law that were not pled or argued at trial. Other grounds allege that the trial judge erred by making a finding that in fact, the trial judge never made. Many of the grounds of appeal are unconnected to the factual findings made by the trial judge. The alleged errors are vaguely and imprecisely framed. [5] The Appellants’ factum does little to clarify their arguments. Respectfully, the submission is replete with inaccurate or oversimplified statements of the law and bald assertions that the trial judge got it wrong on the facts without articulating how or why. [7] Respecting the appeal of the judge’s costs award, it is important to observe that an award of costs is within a judge’s discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent error of law or an injustice.[1] Having concluded the judge did not err in law, we also unanimously agree the appellants did not establish the costs award reflects an unjust result. [8] For these reasons the appeal is dismissed. [9] As to costs on appeal, we award costs to the respondent in the amount of $50,000. As noted, the appellants advanced numerous and ill de-fined grounds of appeal that lacked merit. Further, they advanced several new arguments on appeal not put before and/or adjudicated by the judge to which the respondent had to respond to on appeal. We are satisfied that an award of $50,000 is warranted in the circumstances. [10] The appellants paid security for costs in the amount of $30,000.[2] These funds are to be released to the respondent; leaving costs of $20,000 owing by the appellants to the respondent. Bryson, J.A. Bourgeois, J.A. Van den Eynden, J.A. [1] Ward v. Murphy, 2025 NSCA 5 at para 87. [2] Can*Sport v.HarbourEdge, 2025 NSCA 46