Supreme Court

Decision Information

Decision Content

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Citation: Walsh v. Coady Estate, 2015 NSSC 175

Date: 20150615

Docket: Pic No. 353685

Registry: Halifax

 

Between:

                   Tammy Walsh as Executor for the Estate of Christopher Walsh;

                   Tammy Walsh in her own right; Tammy Walsh as Litigation

                   Guardian for Shamya Walsh (an infant); and Tammy Walsh as

                   Litigation Guardian for Savannah Walsh (an infant)

Plaintiff

and

                   The Estate of Ralph Michael Coady, Jr. and Coast Tire & Auto

                   Services Ltd., a body corporate, and Attorney General of Canada,

                   R.C.M.P. Cst. Katie Green and Unidentified R.C.M.P. Members

Defendants

 

AND IN THE MATTER OF:

 

2011                                                                                        Hfx No. 370332

 

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA

 

Between:

                   Newalta Corporation, a body corporate

Plaintiff

and

 

                   The Estate of Ralph Michael Coady, Jr. and Coast Tire & Auto

                   Services Ltd., a body corporate, and Attorney General of Canada,

                   R.C.M.P. Cst. Katie Green and Unidentified R.C.M.P. Members

Defendants

 

AND IN THE MATTER OF:

 

 

 

2012                                                                                        Pic No. 390342

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA

Between:

                   Barneys River Fish Farm Ltd., a body corporate

Plaintiff

and

 

                   The Estate of Ralph Michael Coady, Jr. and Coast Tire & Auto

                   Services Ltd., a body corporate, and Attorney General of Canada,

                   R.C.M.P. Cst. Katie Green and Unidentified R.C.M.P. Members

Defendants

 

Library Heading

 

Judge:

The Honourable Justice Joshua M. Arnold

Heard:

November 13, 2014 in Halifax, Nova Scotia

Subject:

Summary Judgment on Pleadings

Summary:                

The RCMP received complaints about erratic and risky driving by a specific driver on the highway.  They found the driver in a convenience store parking lot, had brief interaction with the driver and then let him continue driving.  The RCMP received more complaints alleging risky and erratic driving relating to the same driver.  The driver crossed the highway and a collision ensued resulting in the death of both drivers.  The RCMP and specific RCMP members were sued for negligence.

Issues:

Did the statements of claim disclose a sustainable cause of action against the Federal defendants?

Result:

Application to strike the pleadings was dismissed. 

THIS INFORMATION SHEET DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE COURT'S DECISION.  QUOTES MUST BE FROM THE DECISION, NOT THIS LIBRARY SHEET.

 

 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.