Gillis v. Roy Stutley Plumbing and Heating Ltd., 2013 NSCA 58

NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Gillis v. Roy Stutley Plumbing and Heating Ltd. , 2013 NSCA 58 Date: 20130502 Docket: CA 405524 Registry: Halifax Between: Kathy Gillis Appellant v. Roy Stutley Plumbing and Heating Limited, and Ronald Cochrane in his capacity as representative of the Estate of Roy Stutley, deceased, and Intact Insurance Company, a body corporate Respondents Judge: The Honourable Mr. Justice Jamie W.S. Saunders Motion Heard: May 2, 2013, in Halifax, Nova Scotia, in Chambers Written Release: May 6, 2013 Held: Registrar’s motion to dismiss appeal denied.

Counsel: Selina Bath, for the appellant Scott Campbell, for the respondent Intact Insurance Co. Respondent Ronald Cochrane not appearing Decision: (Orally) [ 1 ] This case comes before me in Chambers this morning in the form of a Registrar’s motion to dismiss the appeal because of a failure to “perfect” it pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 90.43(3) and (4). The approach I take in such matters is that once I am satisfied

the deadlines prescribed under the Rules have elapsed; that the Registrar’s action is well-founded; and that all interested parties have been properly notified; the onus shifts to those who would be adversely affected to persuade me that their appeal should not be dismissed. Islam v. Sevgur , 2011 NSCA 114 . [ 2 ] Having reviewed the record I am satisfied that all of these requirements have been met and that therefore it now falls to the appellant or other interested party to persuade me that there are good and sufficient reasons to decline the Registrar’s motion. [ 3 ] This morning Ms. Selina Bath and Mr.

Scott Campbell appeared. Ms. Bath together with Mr. Brian J. Hebert represent the appellant Ms. Kathy Gillis. Mr. Campbell attended on behalf of the insurer, Intact Insurance Company. Both counsel cited and endorsed the submissions made by Mr. Hebert in his letter to the Registrar dated April 18 as providing sufficient explanation for the delay in perfecting the appeal, to this point. I accept counsels’ representations. Based on the facts outlined in Mr.

Hebert’s letter I am satisfied that this appeal should not be dismissed and therefore I will deny the Registrar’s motion. [ 4 ] I would anticipate that the order following trial could soon be formalized and filed with this Court. The trial transcript has already been prepared. I should think that 60 days from today’s date will be sufficient to permit counsel to obtain, formalize and file the order following trial and then apply in either telephone or regular Chambers to fix a date for the hearing of this appeal and the exchange of facta.

To be clear, the parties will have until July 4, 2013 to do just that, failing which the Registrar will be free to renew her motion to dismiss the appeal, unless otherwise ordered by this Court. Should counsel require an extension of this 60 day time frame I have imposed, they can always ask the Registrar to grant a further, short extension if she were satisfied that such a request was reasonable. [ 5 ] The Registrar’s motion to dismiss the appeal for a failure to perfect it is denied. So ordered. Saunders, J.A.