MacKinnon v. Mills

MacKinnon v. Mills

Claim dismissed because the claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the defendant caused the alleged damage; photographic and affidavit evidence did not establish breakage, absence of corroborating physical evidence justified adverse inference, and the defendant and his witnesses were found more credible.

Citation
2013 NSSM 43
Parties
Claimant: Don MacKinnon; Defendant: William Rene Mills
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Court / Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed without costs.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Damage Assessment, Evidence, Witness Credibility, Costs
Source Language
English
Tort Negligence Property Damage Civil Procedure Damage Assessment Evidence Witness Credibility Costs

Case Brief

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

Parties

Don MacKinnon

Claimant

William Rene Mills

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Court / Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the defendant cause damage to the lamp post and frog ornament?
  2. 2 Whether the claimant proved negligence on the balance of probabilities
  3. 3 Assessment of appropriate damages and costs

Ratio Decidendi

Claim dismissed because the claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the defendant caused the alleged damage; photographic and affidavit evidence did not establish breakage, absence of corroborating physical evidence justified adverse inference, and the defendant and his witnesses were found more credible.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed without costs.

Orders

  • Style of cause amended to name the Defendant as William Rene Mills.
  • Claim dismissed without costs; judgment entered for Defendant.