Krisko Construction Inc. v. Harper

Krisko Construction Inc. v. Harper

The court concluded Rule 45.02(3)(c)'s rebuttable presumption applied because Krisko is a corporation that appears unable to satisfy a costs judgment (revoked/inactive registrations, CRA exposure, missing agent, inactive web presence); Krisko filed no evidence to rebut the presumption or show that security would...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2024 NSSC 299
Parties
Plaintiff (defendant by Counterclaim): Krisko Construction Inc.; Defendant (plaintiff by Counterclaim): Sheldon Todd Harper; Defendant (plaintiff by Counterclaim): Wesley Sheldon Harper
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Builders' Lien Act Claim; Motion for Security for Costs / Motion for Security for Costs Under Rule 45
Outcome
Motion granted: Plaintiff (Krisko Construction Inc.) ordered to provide security for costs.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Builders' Lien, Impecuniosity, Service of Process
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Construction Law Corporate Law Security for Costs Builders' Lien Impecuniosity Service of Process

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Krisko Construction Inc.

Plaintiff (defendant by Counterclaim)

Sheldon Todd Harper

Defendant (plaintiff by Counterclaim)

Wesley Sheldon Harper

Defendant (plaintiff by Counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Builders' Lien Act Claim; Motion for Security for Costs / Motion for Security for Costs Under Rule 45

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered under Rule 45
  2. 2 Whether the rebuttable presumption in Rule 45.02(3)(c) is established for a corporation appearing insolvent or without sufficient assets
  3. 3 Whether Krisko rebutted the presumption of undue difficulty of realization (impecuniosity)

Ratio Decidendi

The court concluded Rule 45.02(3)(c)'s rebuttable presumption applied because Krisko is a corporation that appears unable to satisfy a costs judgment (revoked/inactive registrations, CRA exposure, missing agent, inactive web presence); Krisko filed no evidence to rebut the presumption or show that security would stifle a meritorious claim; balancing fairness under Rule 45.02(1)(d) favoured the defendants; therefore security for costs of $28,750 was ordered.

Court Disposition

Motion granted: Plaintiff (Krisko Construction Inc.) ordered to provide security for costs.

Orders

  • Plaintiff Krisko Construction Inc. shall provide security for costs in the amount of $28,750 pursuant to Rule 45 before the matter proceeds further.