Court of Appeal

Decision Information

Decision Content

                                NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL

    Citation: Crossley Carpet Mills Ltd. v. Guarantee Company of North America,

                                                    2003 NSCA 11

 

                                                                                                     Date: 20030120

                                                                                               Docket: CA 184032

                                                                                                   Registry:  Halifax

 

 

Between:

                                         Crossley Carpet Mills Limited

                                                                                                               Appellant

                                                             v.

 

                              The Guarantee Company of North America/

                   La Garantie, Compagnie D’Assurance D’Amerique Du Nord

 

                                                                                                            Respondent

 

 

Judges:                 Bateman, Saunders and Hamilton, JJ.A.

 

Appeal Heard:      January 20, 2003, in Halifax, Nova Scotia

 

Written Judgment:         January 21, 2003

 

Held:                    Appeal dismissed per oral reasons for judgment of Bateman, J.A.; Saunders and Hamilton, JJ.A. concurring.

 

Counsel:               Christa Hellstrom, for the appellant

Thomas Singleton and Karen MacDonald, for the respondent

 


Reasons for judgment: (Orally)

 

[1]              After considering the written and oral submissions of counsel we are not persuaded that there is merit in the grounds of appeal advanced.  In particular, we are not persuaded that the decision in Grenier c. Garantie, Cie d’assurance de l’Amérique du Nord, [2002] J.Q. No. 1133 (Q.L.) has any applicability to the case on appeal nor that it casts doubt upon the trial judge's acceptance of the law of Quebec as proved before him.

 

[2]              We see no reason to depart from the usual award of costs, that being 40% of those at trial, which in this case we fix at $2800 plus disbursements as taxed or agreed.

 

 

Bateman, J.A.

Concurred in:

Saunders, J.A.

Hamilton, J.A.

 


 

 

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.