Court of Appeal

CASE NO.                                                                 VOL. NO.                                           PAGE

DOUGLAS ARTHUR REEVES                  - and -            HORN ABBOT LTD., CHARLES                                                                                        SCOTT ABBOTT, CHRISTOPHER

HANEY, JOHN HANEY and

EDWARD MARTIN WERNER

Appellant                                                                                 Respondents

C.A. No. 161820                                           Halifax                                    ROSCOE, J.A.

                                 [Cite as: Horn Abbot Ltd. v. Reeves, 2000 NSCA 88]

APPEAL HEARD:                           June 15, 2000

JUDGMENT DELIVERED:           July 26, 2000

SUBJECT:               Practice - Rule 14.25 - Witness Immunity Rule

SUMMARY:              The respondents sued the appellant claiming that he conspired with others to fabricate a story whereby Wall, the plaintiff in another action, claimed to have invented a game marketed by the respondents, the defendants in the other action. The appellant’s participation in the conspiracy was particularized as giving false statements to Walls’ solicitors, giving false discovery evidence, and agreeing to testify on Wall’s behalf.

A Chambers judge dismissed the appellant’s application to strike or stay the statement of claim as being either an abuse of process or a vexatious proceeding. On appeal from that decision, the appellant argued that the action should be struck out because it violated the witness immunity rule.

ISSUE:                      Whether the action should be struck out pursuant to Rule 14.25.

RESULT:                  The conspiracy action against the appellant , being based solely upon his discovery evidence and his anticipated trial evidence, should be struck out pursuant to Rule 14.25 since it is in violation of the witness immunity rule. The allegations that the appellant  has given and has agreed to give false statements and evidence to corroborate Wall’s fabrication, do not disclose a cause of action. The witness immunity rule cannot be circumvented by claiming a bare conspiracy between witnesses to make false statements.