Canada Case Law

Hatfield v. Kendall

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

All claims between the parties related to construction of Hatfield's home must proceed in the Supreme Court; related Small Claims Court claims are struck and form the basis of an amendment in the Supreme Court; Kendall must perfect his motion to amend in compliance with Rule 83 by August 31, 2023 (failure to do so will result in dismissal with prejudice); costs are awarded to Hatfield in the total amount of $1,540.78 with disbursements of $40.78 payable forthwith and the balance of $1,500 payable by January 1, 2024.

Source excerpt

• Costs
• Jurisdiction
• Amendment of pleadings
• Consolidation of proceedings
• Res judicata
• Compliance with civil procedure rules

Read case analysis

Sutherland v. Jones

Court

Nova Scotia Small Claims Court

The claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the defendants caused the alleged floor damage; the amendment to increase quantum was properly allowed because it added particulars to an existing timely claim and did not add parties or a new cause; Brandon Jones is not contractually liable as he did not sign or manifest assent to the contract; accordingly the claim is dismissed and no costs are awarded.

Source excerpt

• Amendment of claim
• Limitation period
• Contract formation and privity
• Negligence and causation
• Quantification of damages and betterment
• Costs discretion

Read case analysis

Kim v. Kim

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

On costs after judgment, the court held Rule 14-1(10) barred tariff costs to the plaintiff because the claim was not objectively justified in Supreme Court.

• Rule 14-1(10)
• Pre-judgment interest
• Small claims act jurisdiction
• Disbursements
• Declaratory relief
• Defamation

Read case analysis

Cram v. Miller

Court

Nova Scotia Small Claims Court

The claim is dismissed because the substance of the dispute requires enforcement of a Supreme Court Family Division consent order and/or involves third-party creditor rights, matters that fall outside the jurisdictional scope of the Small Claims Court under s.9; therefore the court cannot grant the monetary or repossession relief sought.

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction
• Enforcement of supreme court order
• Repossession
• Consent order
• Garnishment

Read case analysis

Mehta v. Douglas

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court held the infant plaintiff had sufficient reason to start the claim in Supreme Court, given uncertainty of damages, need for counsel, and available procedures.

• Damages assessment
• Non-pecuniary damages
• Future treatment costs
• Sufficient reason to commence in supreme court
• Summary trial
• Examinations for discovery

Read case analysis

Cue v. Breitkreuz

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Costs decision in a motor-vehicle liability trial: the court refused to award the successful defendants costs beyond disbursements, and left disbursements for assessment.

• Offer to settle
• Double costs
• Jurisdiction transfer to provincial court
• Disbursements assessment
• Evidence - independent witness
• Costs

Read case analysis

Gradek v. DaimlerChrysler Financial Services Canada Inc.

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

La Cour d’appel de la Colombie-Britannique a accordé l’autorisation d’appel sur une question d’interprétation de la règle 57(10) relative aux dépens et aux petites créances.

• Rule 57(10) sufficient reason
• Rule 66(29)(b) fast track costs
• Leave to appeal
• Jurisdictional quantum vs procedural advantages
• Costs
• Leave-to-appeal

Read case analysis

Gradek v. DaimlerChrysler Financial Services Canada Inc. and Fletcher

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court held that Rule 57(10) did not bar costs, finding sufficient reason to sue in Supreme Court despite a recovery within Small Claims jurisdiction.

• Rule 57(10) sufficient reason
• Rule 66 costs scale
• Forum selection
• Provincial court monetary jurisdiction
• Examinations for discovery
• Proportionality

Read case analysis

Pyramid Properties Ltd. v. Johnston

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The adjudicator committed jurisdictional error and breached natural justice by awarding $4,000 to Patrick Johnston, who was not a party to the proceeding and had not been added or given notice; UC's claim was properly dismissed because its debt was found paid, but substituting a claimant on the adjudicator's own motion without notice was impermissible and the award to Johnston must be set aside and awaited in a separate proceeding.

Source excerpt

• Natural justice
• Jurisdictional error
• Loan repayment
• Third-party claims
• Amendment of pleadings
• Standard of review on appeal

Read case analysis

MacDonald v. Myra

Court

Nova Scotia Small Claims Court

The Small Claims Court lacks statutory jurisdiction to hear claims that are pure equitable remedies—specifically breach of fiduciary duty and applications for accounting—which do not arise under contract or tort as required by the Small Claims Court Act; matters under the Powers of Attorney Act fall within the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under s.5 of that Act. Accordingly, the claim and counterclaim must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Source excerpt

• Breach of fiduciary duty
• Accounting
• Jurisdiction
• Capacity
• Unjust enrichment
• Dismissal

Read case analysis