MacGillivray Law Office Inc. v. New Glasgow (Town)
The appeal is dismissed because the appellants failed to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 62.15 and did not present coherent, developed submissions; their attempt to raise new issues and resile from a prior admission lacked merit even if permitted; costs were awarded to the respondent.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2002 NSCA 22
- Parties
- Appellant: MacGILLIVRAY LAW OFFICE INCORPORATED; Appellant: MacGILLICUDDY’S RESTAURANT INC.; Appellant: MacGILLIVRAY PROPERTIES LIMITED; Appellant: JAMIE FRANK MacGILLIVRAY; Respondent: TOWN OF NEW GLASGOW
- Court
- Nova Scotia Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 11 February 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal to Court of Appeal / Decision on Appeal (oral Reasons)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Compliance With Procedural Rules, Raising New Issues on Appeal, Resiling From Admissions, Costs Awards, Stay Application
- 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
MacGILLIVRAY LAW OFFICE INCORPORATED
Appellant
MacGILLICUDDY’S RESTAURANT INC.
Appellant
MacGILLIVRAY PROPERTIES LIMITED
Appellant
JAMIE FRANK MacGILLIVRAY
Appellant
TOWN OF NEW GLASGOW
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal to Court of Appeal / Decision on Appeal (oral Reasons)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether appellants complied with Civil Procedure Rule 62.15
- 2 Whether appellants may raise new issues on appeal or resile from a prior admission
- 3 Whether the proposed new arguments have merit
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal is dismissed because the appellants failed to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 62.15 and did not present coherent, developed submissions; their attempt to raise new issues and resile from a prior admission lacked merit even if permitted; costs were awarded to the respondent.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Costs to respondent in the amount of $3000 inclusive of disbursements, including costs of the stay application before Roscoe, J.A.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
MacGillivray Law Office Inc. v. New Glasgow (Town) Court Court of Appeal Date 2002-02-11 Citation 2002 NSCA 22 Docket CA 174511 Judge/Registrar/Adjudicator Bateman, Nancy J. (Honourable Justice) (CA); Freeman, Gerald B. (Honourable Justice) (CA); Oland, Linda L. (Honourable Justice) Document Type Decision Decision Content Date: 20020211 Docket: CA 174511 NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL [Cite as: MacGillivray Law Office Inc. v. New Glasgow (Town), 2002 NSCA 22] Bateman, Freeman and Oland, JJ.A. BETWEEN: MacGILLIVRAY LAW OFFICE INCORPORATED, a body corporate, MacGILLICUDDY’S RESTAURANT INC., a body corporate, MacGILLIVRAY PROPERTIES LIMITED, a body corporate and JAMIE FRANK MacGILLIVRAY Appellants - and - TOWN OF NEW GLASGOW Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Counsel: Wayne A. Bacchus for the appellants David F. Wallace, Q.C. for the respondent Appeal Heard: February 11, 2002 Judgment Delivered: February 11, 2002 THE COURT: Appeal dismissed per oral reasons for judgment of Bateman, J.A.; Freeman and Oland, JJ.A. concurring. BATEMAN, J.A.: (Orally) [1] In their factum the appellants have not advanced any coherent submission in support of their position. It is not the job of this Court to divine an argument from the appellants’ reference, without analysis, to various cases. The individual appellant, Jamie Frank MacGillvray, is a practicing lawyer presumably capable of developing and advancing a submission in support of his and his clients’ position, as is required on an appeal. The appellants have not complied in substance with Civil Procedure Rule 62.15. [2] In oral argument the appellants sought to raise new issues and resile from an admission made in Supreme Court Chambers. We are not persuaded that there is merit to their argument, even if allowed. [3] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent in the amount of $3000 inclusive of disbursements and including the costs of the stay application before Roscoe, J.A. of this Court. Bateman, J.A. Concurred in: Freeman, J.A. Oland, J.A.