Guthro v. Chisholm

Guthro v. Chisholm

The appeal was dismissed because the proposed fresh evidence could have been obtained earlier and was not decisive on the issues raised; the chambers judge did not apply a wrong principle of law and no patent injustice resulted from denying summary judgment and an interim payment, so the appellate court will not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2001 NSCA 136
Parties
Appellant: William Robert Guthro; Respondent: John Chisholm; Respondent: Nova Construction Limited; Respondent: Pioneer Coal Limited
Court
Nova Scotia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 October 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal From Denial of Summary Judgment and Interim Payment; Application to Admit Fresh Evidence Under Civil Procedure Rule 62.22
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; application to introduce fresh evidence dismissed; chambers judge's order denying summary judgment and interim payment upheld; costs awarded to respondents.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Interlocutory Orders, Fresh Evidence on Appeal, Standard of Review, Costs
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Appellate Review Evidence Summary Judgment Interlocutory Orders Fresh Evidence on Appeal Standard of Review Costs

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

Parties

William Robert Guthro

Appellant

John Chisholm

Respondent

Nova Construction Limited

Respondent

Pioneer Coal Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal From Denial of Summary Judgment and Interim Payment; Application to Admit Fresh Evidence Under Civil Procedure Rule 62.22

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was entitled to summary judgment and an interim payment
  2. 2 Whether fresh evidence obtained after the chambers hearing should be admitted on appeal under Rule 62.22
  3. 3 What standard of review applies to an interlocutory discretionary order on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the proposed fresh evidence could have been obtained earlier and was not decisive on the issues raised; the chambers judge did not apply a wrong principle of law and no patent injustice resulted from denying summary judgment and an interim payment, so the appellate court will not interfere with the discretionary interlocutory order.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; application to introduce fresh evidence dismissed; chambers judge's order denying summary judgment and interim payment upheld; costs awarded to respondents.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Application to introduce fresh evidence dismissed