Ryan v. Pullin

Ryan v. Pullin

The judge had jurisdiction to hear the application under Rule 1.05(e); the applicant failed to demonstrate special circumstances or inability to pay under Rule 53.13(1) to justify staying or quashing the execution order; the sheriff properly served the bank (a third party in possession) under Rule 53.02(1)(b) so no...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2003 NSCA 81
Parties
Appellant: Theodore Augustine Ryan; Respondent: Joanne Helen (Ryan) Pullin
Court
Nova Scotia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Application to Quash Execution Order / Chambers Hearing in the Court of Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Execution Order, Stay of Execution, Service on Third Parties, Set Off, Jurisdiction of Court in Chambers, Costs
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Family Law Enforcement of Judgments Execution Order Stay of Execution Service on Third Parties Set Off Jurisdiction of Court in Chambers +1 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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Theodore Augustine Ryan

Appellant

Joanne Helen (Ryan) Pullin

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to Quash Execution Order / Chambers Hearing in the Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a judge of the Court of Appeal sitting in chambers has jurisdiction to quash an execution order
  2. 2 Whether the execution order should be stayed under Civil Procedure Rule 53.13(1) due to special circumstances or inability to pay
  3. 3 Whether the sheriff was required to notify the judgment debtor when seizing funds held by a bank

Ratio Decidendi

The judge had jurisdiction to hear the application under Rule 1.05(e); the applicant failed to demonstrate special circumstances or inability to pay under Rule 53.13(1) to justify staying or quashing the execution order; the sheriff properly served the bank (a third party in possession) under Rule 53.02(1)(b) so no notice to the debtor was required; and alleged set-off cannot be effected by the court absent a formal plea or counterclaim—therefore the execution order remains enforceable and the application is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Applicant to pay costs of $150.00 inclusive of disbursements to the respondent
  • Execution order dated May 30, 2003 remains enforceable