Abridean International Inc. v. Bidgood, 2017 NSCA 25

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal Citation: Abridean International Inc. v. Bidgood, 2017 NSCA 25 Date: 20170324 Docket: CA 456387 Registry: Halifax Between: Abridean International Inc. and/or Sagecrowd Inc. and/or Ogden Pond Technology Group Appellants v. Peter Bidgood; Director of Labour Standards; Nova Scotia Labour Board (Susan Ashley, Q.C. Vice Chair, Marinus Van de Sande, and Larry Wark); and Attorney General of Nova Scotia Respondents Judge: Peter M.S.

Bryson, J.A.Motion Heard: March 23, 2017, in Halifax, Nova Scotia in ChambersHeld: Motion dismissedCounsel: Jane O’Neill, Q.C., for the appellants (respondents on the motion) David A. Cameron, for the respondent Peter Bidgood (applicant on the motion) Andrew D. Taillon for the respondent Director of Labour Standards (watching brief only) Edward A. Gores, Q.C. for the respondent Attorney General of Nova Scotia (watching brief only) Decision: [1] Mr. Bidgood has brought a motion to enforce an alleged settlement agreement with the appellants. The Labour Board awardedMr.

Bidgood a substantial sum following termination of his employment with the appellants. They appealed, arguing that the LabourBoard lacked jurisdiction to afford him the relief awarded. [2] In the fall of 2016, negotiations occurred between the parties. The Court was informed in chambers that an agreement inprinciple had been reached. Unfortunately, the parties ultimately disagreed on whether they had a binding agreement. Mr. Bidgood saysa deal was made. The appellants claim not. [3] Mr. Bidgood brought a motion in chambers to enforce the alleged settlement agreement.

The Court raised the question of itsjurisdiction to resolve the matter and the parties addressed this during oral submissions. [4] Mr. Bidgood relies upon Rule 10.04 which allows a party to bring a motion to give effect to a settlement agreement. Mr.Bidgood argues that Rule 90.02(1) allows the Court of Appeal to apply other rules of court “not inconsistent with Rule 90”. [5] Generally speaking, the powers of the Court of Appeal are exercised by a full panel of the Court. The authority of judgessitting in chambers is confined to what the Rules or statute explicitly permits them to do: Future Inns Canada Inc. v.

Nova Scotia(Labour Relations Board), 1996 NSCA 11 , 154 N.S.R. (2d) 358 per Hallett J.A. in chambers; R.B. v. Children’s Aid Society ofNova Scotia, 2002 NSCA 108 per Cromwell J.A. in chambers. [6] The powers of a single judge in chambers are largely procedural and interlocutory, (90.37; 90.40). They may tangentiallytouch the merits where other matters are raised, i.e. on a motion to dismiss for noncompliance with the Rules or the granting of a stay. [7] The parties have suggested the motion may be referred to a full panel of the Court. That cannot avail Mr. Bidgood.

Thejurisdictional challenge goes beyond the capacity of a single judge of the Court. The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal is not a court of firstinstance. Its jurisdiction is set out in ss. 38-40 of the Judicature Act. Those sections describe appeal, not original jurisdiction.

[ 8 ] Nor is this a case where resort to the Court’s inherent jurisdiction can overcome a want of explicit authority in the Judicature Act or Rule 90. [ 9 ] Mr. Bidgood’s position that an enforceable contract was entered into between the parties describes a new cause of action, justiciable in the Supreme Court. Perhaps anticipating this problem, counsel informed me during the hearing that an action has been brought by Mr. Bidgood for, amongst other things, enforcement of the alleged settlement agreement. [ 10 ] Mr.

Bidgood commendably seeks a swift and cost-effective means for resolution of the discrete issue dividing the parties. Unfortunately, neither a judge in chambers nor a panel of this Court is that means. A special chambers hearing in the Supreme Court may well be. [ 11 ] There is no point in referring to a full panel of this Court that which it is jurisdictionally unable to decide. [ 12 ] Mr. Bidgood’s motion is dismissed. As the motion has been decided on a point not originally raised by the parties, there will be no costs. Bryson, J.A.