The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia has dismissed a motion by the Municipality of the County of King’s to convert an application for wrongful dismissal into a full-fledged action in a case involving a withdrawn job offer.
The decision, handed down by Justice Gail L. Gatchalian, emphasized the court’s preference for timely and cost-effective legal processes.
Background and claims
The plaintiff, B.G., initiated the proceedings as an application, claiming wrongful dismissal, breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, and negligence.
These claims arose after the Municipality of the County of Kings revoked an offer of employment just two days before her intended start date. The revocation followed a conversation between the Municipality and a representative from B.G.’s former employer, the Town of Kentville.
The Municipality, in its defense, argued that the case fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of an arbitrator under the collective agreement with the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 2618, referencing the precedent set in Weber v. Ontario Hydro. The Municipality sought to convert the application into an action to enable a summary judgment motion on the jurisdictional issue and argued that the complexity of the case required a full trial.
Court’s analysis
Justice Gatchalian rejected the Municipality’s motion, finding that the factors outlined in the Civil Procedure Rules favored proceeding with the application. The court highlighted several key points:
Timeliness and efficiency: The court found that the parties could be ready for a hearing within months rather than years, aligning with the goal of promoting timely access to justice. Justice Gatchalian noted, “The parties can be ready to be heard in months rather than years.”
Predictable hearing length: The court estimated that the hearing could be completed in four days, as opposed to the five days suggested by the Municipality. This estimation was based on the minimal need for witness testimony and the absence of medical evidence.
Cost considerations: Justice Gatchalian concluded that an application would likely be less costly and more efficient than a full trial. The court was not persuaded that a conventional trial was proportional to the needs of the case, stating, “I am not satisfied that, in the circumstances of this case, one type of proceeding will be more costly than the other. However, I find that the hearing of an application is likely to be heard sooner than an action.”
Credibility issues: The court determined that credibility could be satisfactorily assessed through cross-examination on affidavits, as opposed to requiring viva voce evidence. The decision referenced a similar ruling in Kings (County) v. Berwick (Town), underscoring that cross-examination would suffice for assessing credibility.
The Municipality’s motion to convert the application to an action was dismissed, with costs awarded to B.G.. If the parties cannot agree on the amount, the court will receive written submissions from both parties to determine the appropriate costs, it said.
For more information, see Gentleman v. Kings (County), 2024 NSSC 165 (CanLII).
