Haughn v. Halifax (Regional Police Commissioners)
The chambers judge correctly determined, on the agreed facts under Rule 25.01, that the court should not entertain jurisdiction over the subject matter because the statutory scheme required submission to arbitration or other statutory proceedings; no error of law was demonstrated on appeal, so the appeal is dismissed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2002 NSCA 28
- Parties
- Appellant: Lenard Haughn; Appellant: Tim Mosher; Appellant: Kevin Tellenbach; Appellant: Joe Collins; Appellant: Dave Worrell; Appellant: Chris Melvin; Respondent: Halifax Regional Board of Police Commissioners; Respondent: Vincent J. MacDonald, Chief of Police of the Halifax Regional Police Service; Intervenor: Municipal Association of Police Personnel
- Court
- Nova Scotia Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 14 February 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Jurisdictional Challenge / Court of Appeal Appeal Heard and Judgment Delivered
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction, Stay Pending Arbitration, Statutory Dispute Resolution, Question of Law on Agreed Facts
- 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
Lenard Haughn
Appellant
Tim Mosher
Appellant
Kevin Tellenbach
Appellant
Joe Collins
Appellant
Dave Worrell
Appellant
Chris Melvin
Appellant
Halifax Regional Board of Police Commissioners
Respondent
Vincent J. MacDonald, Chief of Police of the Halifax Regional Police Service
Respondent
Municipal Association of Police Personnel
Intervenor
Procedural Posture
Civil Jurisdictional Challenge / Court of Appeal Appeal Heard and Judgment Delivered
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to deal with the subject matter of the appellants' action
- 2 Whether the proceeding should be stayed pending submission to arbitration or other statutorily permitted proceedings
Ratio Decidendi
The chambers judge correctly determined, on the agreed facts under Rule 25.01, that the court should not entertain jurisdiction over the subject matter because the statutory scheme required submission to arbitration or other statutory proceedings; no error of law was demonstrated on appeal, so the appeal is dismissed.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Costs to Respondents in the amount of $1,000.00 plus disbursements
- Chambers judge's order stayed pending submission to arbitration or other statutorily permitted proceedings was upheld
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Haughn v. Halifax (Regional Police Commissioners) Court Court of Appeal Date 2002-02-14 Citation 2002 NSCA 28 Docket CA 174499 Judge/Registrar/Adjudicator Roscoe, Elizabeth A. (Honourable Justice) (CA); Oland, Linda L. (Honourable Justice); Chipman, David (Honourable Justice) Document Type Decision Decision Content Date: 20020214 Docket: CA 174499 NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Cite as: Haughn v. Halifax (Regional Police Commissioners), 2002 NSCA 28 Roscoe, Chipman and Oland, JJ.A. BETWEEN: LENARD HAUGHN, TIM MOSHER, KEVIN TELLENBACH, JOE COLLINS, DAVE WORRELL and CHRIS MELVIN Appellants - and - HALIFAX REGIONAL BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS and VINCENT J. MACDONALD, CHIEF OF POLICE OF THE HALIFAX REGIONAL POLICE SERVICE Respondents - and - MUNICIPAL ASSOCIATION OF POLICE PERSONNEL Intervenor ______________________________________________________________________________ REASONS FOR JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________________ Counsel: Nancy L. Elliott/Ronald A. Stockton for the Appellants Terry L. Roane, Q.C. for the Respondents Ronald A. Pink, Q.C./Bettina Quistgaard for the Intervenor Appeal Heard: February 14, 2002 Judgment Delivered: February 14, 2002 THE COURT: The appeal is dismissed with costs to the Respondents in the amount of $1,000.00, plus disbursements as per oral reasons for judgment of Roscoe, J.A.; Chipman and Oland, JJ.A., concurring. ROSCOE, J.A.: (Orally) [1] This is an appeal from a decision of Justice David MacAdam, in Chambers, on an application for a determination of a question of law pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 25.01, which proceeded on the basis of an agreed statement of facts. The question posed on the application was whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to deal with the subject matter of the action brought by the appellants. In his decision which is reported at (2001), 197 N.S.R. (2d) 60, Justice MacAdam determined that the court should not entertain jurisdiction and ordered that the proceeding be stayed “. . . pending submission to arbitration or any other form of proceeding that is permitted under the statutory enactments applicable to the parties and the disputes in question”. [2] Having carefully reviewed the decision, the record, and the authorities, and having considered the written and oral submissions of counsel, we are not satisfied that the learned Chambers judge made any error of law. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs payable to the respondents in the amount of $1,000.00 plus disbursements. The intervenor did not seek an order of costs. Roscoe, J.A. Concurred in: Chipman, J.A. Oland, J.A.