Dataville Farms ltd. v. Colchester County (Municipality)

Dataville Farms ltd. v. Colchester County (Municipality)

Security for costs was ordered because Dataville Farms Ltd. is effectively a shell with outstanding, unsatisfied cost orders and judgment(s), creating special circumstances that justify protecting successful respondents; quantum set at approximately 40% of trial cost awards resulting in orders for $4,000 and $3,200...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2014 NSCA 81
Parties
Respondent/appellant: Dataville Farms Ltd.; Applicants/respondents: Municipality of the County of Colchester; Applicants/respondents: Jonathan Baha’I (aka Jonathan Tranter dba Server Balance Solutions)
Court
Nova Scotia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 September 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal (security for Costs Motion) / Motion Heard in Chambers (security for Costs)
Outcome
Motions granted
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Special Circumstances, Unsatisfied Judgments, Impecuniosity, Corporate Veil, Costs Awards
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Appeal Tax Sale Costs Security for Costs Special Circumstances Unsatisfied Judgments Impecuniosity +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dataville Farms Ltd.

Respondent/appellant

Municipality of the County of Colchester

Applicants/respondents

Jonathan Baha’I (aka Jonathan Tranter dba Server Balance Solutions)

Applicants/respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal (security for Costs Motion) / Motion Heard in Chambers (security for Costs)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to order security for costs under Rule 90.42
  2. 2 Whether special circumstances exist to justify security for costs
  3. 3 What quantum of security for costs is appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs was ordered because Dataville Farms Ltd. is effectively a shell with outstanding, unsatisfied cost orders and judgment(s), creating special circumstances that justify protecting successful respondents; quantum set at approximately 40% of trial cost awards resulting in orders for $4,000 and $3,200 payable by September 4, 2014, failing which the appeal may be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Motions granted

Orders

  • Respondent to pay to the Registrar security for costs of $4,000 in relation to Jonathan Baha’i.
  • Respondent to pay to the Registrar security for costs of $3,200 in relation to the Municipality of the County of Colchester.