Star v. Davison, 2023 NSSM 67

Small Claims Court OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Star v. Davison , 2023 NSSM 67 Date: 20231024 Docket: 525305 Registry: Halifax Between: 5 Star Security Services Claimant v. Kevin Davison Defendant Adjudicator: Darrell Pink Heard: October 24, 2023 in Halifax, Nova Scotia Decision: October 24, 2023 Appearances: Hannah Fahie, Agent for the Claimant Defendant, Self-represented By the Court: [ 1 ] This Claim is for an unpaid invoice for security services provided by the Claimant at two music events in May 2023.

The Defendant was a performer at those events who assisted the promoter with logistics and ticket sales. [ 2 ] Treva Hiltz was promoting two concerts to raise funds for first responders in the spring of 2023. They were to be held under the name ‘Behind the Eyes’, which was intended to be registered as a business name. The Defendant, a long time first responder, a musician and friend of Ms. Hiltz agreed to assist her with ticket sales and some other logistics, because of his connections in the Annapolis Valley, where one concert was held. [ 3 ] On May 10, 2023, Ms.

Hiltz communicated with Zach Doyle, Director of Operations for the Claimant. She gave the dates and locations for the concerts. Mr. Doyle emailed her under the heading ‘Behind The Eyes in Partnership with Wounded Warriors – May 2023’ with a proposal for security services. Ms. Hiltz replied to his proposal by suggesting a change in the complement of staff to be used. [ 4 ] Ms. Hiltz was ill and undergoing cancer treatment. [ 5 ] Neither Mr.

Doyle nor Ms Hiltz testified, so there was no direct evidence of the discussions between the promoter and the Claimant. [ 6 ] As the events approached, no contract had been signed. The Claimant required one and a deposit of fifty percent. The Defendant testified MS. Hiltz asked him to attend the Claimant’s office to sign the contract on her behalf. On May 16, the Defendant communicated with Mr. Doyle to obtain a copy of the contract as he was assisting Ms.

Hiltz to obtain a liquor licence and confirmation of security was a requirement for that. [ 7 ] After an exchange of emails, May 25 was set as the day for signing the contract. The Defendant met with Mr. Doyle and signed the contract between ‘5 Star Security Services’ and ‘Behind The Eyes (Client)’. Under his signature he wrote ‘Promoter’ next to ‘Position’, even though he knew that was not his role.

[ 8 ] The two concerts happened. The Claimant provided its services. It was not paid. Mr. Davison testified that though he forwarded funds from ticket sales to Ms. Hiltz, he also was not paid. He believes that is also the case for others. He believes Ms.

Hiltz, because of her ill health or otherwise took advantage of him and others and did not meet her financial obligations. [ 9 ] To succeed in its claim, the Claimant must prove on the balance of probabilities that there was a contract between it and the Defendant, which imposed personal responsibility on the Defendant to be liable for the costs of the Claimant’s services.

The Claimant must prove there was an intention between it and the Defendant to enter into a contract that would require the Defendant to pay for the services toe Claimant provided. [ 10 ] As presented the facts show concerts were being provided by an entity called ‘Behind The Eyes’. It was being promoted by Ms. Hiltz. Absent any contrary evidence, the Court finds, based on the email exchange, that Mr. Doyle, on the Claimant’s behalf, had with Ms. Hiltz knew he was dealing with Behind The Eyes. As the events grew closer there was some scrambling to get the contract signed, so Mr.

Davison, as a friend of Ms Hiltz, who was helping her with the event, agreed to sign the contract on behalf of Behind The Eyes. The Claimant provided no evidence that it expected Mr. Davison was taking on a personal obligation. Only after the events were held and payment was not made did it begin to pursue him, solely because he had signed the contract. [ 11 ] At law the mere execution of a contract on behalf of another does not create personal responsibility. There was never an intention that there. [ 12 ] would be a contact between 5 Star and Mr. Davison.

The intention was there was to be a contract between 5 Star and behind The Eyes, which was name used by Ms. Hiltz. It was her enterprise, her business, her responsibility. [ 13 ] The Claimant has not proven what is required to succeed in its claim. The Claim is dismissed. Darrell Pink, Small Claims Court Adjudicator