Leyland v. Peck

Leyland v. Peck

The claimant's claim was dismissed for non-appearance with notice and no adjournment requested; the defendant's counterclaim was dismissed because the claimant did not establish an adequate evidentiary foundation for claimed reputational losses and lost revenue, and the InspectR insurance deductible was not recoverable under the Small Claims Court Act and Regulations which preclude awarding agent or barrister fees or analogous legal-support costs.

Citation
2026 NSSM 8
Parties
Claimant: Andrew Roy Leyland; Defendant: Gregory Peck
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 March 2026
Procedural Posture
Small Claims / Final Adjudication / Decision
Outcome
Claim and counterclaim dismissed; no costs awarded to either party.
Legal Topics
Building Inspection, Breach of Contract, Counterclaim, Reputational Damage, Insurance Deductible, Evidentiary Foundation, Costs
Source Language
English
Contract Law Small Claims Procedure Civil Damages Building Inspection Breach of Contract Counterclaim Reputational Damage Insurance Deductible +2 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Roy Leyland

Claimant

Gregory Peck

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims / Final Adjudication / Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's claim should be dismissed for non-appearance
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's counterclaim is supported by sufficient evidence
  3. 3 Whether the insurance deductible invoiced by InspectR is a recoverable expense in Small Claims Court

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's claim was dismissed for non-appearance with notice and no adjournment requested; the defendant's counterclaim was dismissed because the claimant did not establish an adequate evidentiary foundation for claimed reputational losses and lost revenue, and the InspectR insurance deductible was not recoverable under the Small Claims Court Act and Regulations which preclude awarding agent or barrister fees or analogous legal-support costs.

Court Disposition

Claim and counterclaim dismissed; no costs awarded to either party.

Orders

  • Claim dismissed for non-appearance
  • Counterclaim dismissed for lack of adequate evidentiary foundation and because the insurance deductible is not recoverable