Court of Appeal

CASE NO.                                                  VOLUME                                                          PAGE

Cite as: Vansnick v. Bank of Nova Scotia, 1998 NSCA 110

RICHARD A. VANSNICK, PAULA E.                                   THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA

IRVING AND WILLIAM ROY SMITH

                                                                        - and -

(Appellants)                                                                                                              (Respondent)

C.A.  No. 143948                                   Halifax, N.S.                                          Freeman, J.A.

                                                                                                                    (Orally      

APPEAL HEARD:                                        May 19, 1998

JUDGMENT DELIVERED:             May 19, 1998

WRITTEN RELEASE OF ORAL:               May 22, 1998

SUBJECT:         Civil Procedure; Want of Prosecution; Civil Procedure Rule 28.13

SUMMARY:      The respondent Bank of Nova Scotia obtained a consent judgment on a letter of                           credit against Richard M. VanSnick, then brought another  action against him and                  the appellants,  claiming he had previously made conveyances of his real and              personal property to them without consideration to defeat creditors. The letter of                      credit had permitted Mr. VanSnick to participate as a Canadian "name"  of  Lloyds                       of London.  Lloyds had demanded payment and collected from the Bank.  The                       Bank delayed proceeding from 1992 until early 1997 at Mr. VanSnick’s request                            to await the outcome of litigation in Ontario involving Lloyds' names in that                province.  The appellants, asserting the delay had not been for their benefit,                       applied under Civil Procedure Rule 28.13 for dismissal of the Bank’s case for               want of prosecution.  They have appealed the dismissal of that application.

ISSUES:               Was the delay inordinate; did the appellants suffer prejudice?

RESULT:            The appeal was dismissed with costs of $750 inclusive of disbursements.  In the                         absence of wrong principles or injustice, this court will not interfere with a                   discretionary order in an interlocutory matter:  Global Petroleum Corp. et at.                         v. C.B.I Industries et al. (1997), 158 N.S.R. (2d) 201 (C.A.)