ELI HUMBY FIRST APPELLANT AND: CENTRAL SPRINGS LIMITED SECOND APPELLANT AND: NEWFOUNDLAND v. LABRADOR, 2013 NLCA 5

Date: 201301 15 Docket: 10/46 Citation: Humby v. Newfoundland and Labrador Housing C orporation , 2013 NLCA 5 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN: ELI HUMBY FIRST APPELLANT AND: CENTRAL SPRINGS LIMITED SECOND APPELLANT AND: NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR HOUSING CORPORATION RESPONDENT Coram: Green C.J.N.L., Rowe and Hoegg JJ.A.

Court Appealed From: Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador Trial Division (G) 2007 01T 4090 Application Heard: January 15, 2013 Decision Rendered: January 15, 2013 (Orally) Memorandum of Disposition Filed: January 15, 2013 Memorandum of Disposition by Green C.J.N.L. Counsel for First Appellant: Robert Anstey Counsel for Second Appellant: Robert Anstey Counsel for the Respondent: Andrew Fitzgerald MEMORANDUM OF DISPOSITION

Green C.J.N.L.: [ 1 ] We are all of the view that this application, seeking sanctions and costs against the respondent and its solicitor personally for failure to respond to a Notice to Produce documents served subsequent to the respondent’s application to strike the appeal, should be dismissed. [ 2 ] What was sought by the Notice to Produce does not relate to any matter in question in the proceeding, within the meaning of Rule 32 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1986 .

As conceded by counsel for the applicant, the purpose of obtaining the information is to further an argument that the Court should apply sanctions against counsel for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation in respect of the manner of his dealing with the previous application to strike heard in November, 2012. [ 3 ] The issue was effectively decided by the decision of the Court filed yesterday. (See Humby v. Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation , 2013 NLCA 4 .) That decision dealt with costs and awarded them on a higher scale than normal, in favour of the appellants.

The current application effectively asks the Court to revisit the importance and size of our costs order. In our view, there is no proper basis to do so. [ 4 ] As indicated, we would dismiss the application. In our view the proper costs disposition on this application is to order that there be no award of costs. J. Derek Green C.J.N.L.