Supreme Court

Decision Information

Decision Content

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA

Citation: Spidell v LaHave Equipment Ltd., 2014 NSSC 255

 

Date: 20140708

Docket: Bwt. 193703

Registry: Bridgewater

 

 

Between:

Laurie W. Spidell

Plaintiff

and

 

LaHave Equipment Limited, Case Credit

Limited and Case Canada Limited

Defendants

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIBRARY HEADING

 

 

 

 

Judge:         The Honourable Justice C. Richard Coughlan

 

Subject:      Summary Judgment

 

Summary:   LaHave Equipment Ltd. was a dealer for Case Canada Ltd.  The plaintiff approached LaHave Equipment to discuss the acquisition of a harvester for use in his forestry business.  The plaintiff purchased a case excavator with a Keto harvesting head.  The plaintiff claims LaHave Equipment employees made representations as to how much wood the machine could harvest.  The plaintiff purchased the harvester.  He failed to make the required payment and the equipment was repossessed.

 


The plaintiff sued LaHave Equipment claiming damages for alleged misrepresentations. LaHave Equipment defended the action.  Subsequently, LaHave Equipment made an assignment in bankruptcy.  The plaintiff amended his claim adding Case Canada and Case Credit Limited claiming LaHave Equipment was their agent.  Case Canada and Case Credit move for summary judgment.

 

Issue: Is this an appropriate case for summary judgment.

 

Result:        At the hearing the plaintiff argued his claim against Case Credit should be dismissed.  Case Canada objected to certain evidence on the basis it was hearsay.  A portion of the evidence objected to was ruled inadmissible.

 

The plaintiffs claim was based on LaHave Equipment being an agent for Case Canada.  There was no evidence that LaHave Equipment was the agent of Case Canada.  There was no issue of material fact requiring trial.  The plaintiff did not establish his claim as one with a real chance of success.

 

 

 

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.