Skip to content

Client Update: Changes to the Rules of the Supreme Court

Recent changes to the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1986, SNL 1986, c 42, Sch D

On December 14, 2012, several changes were made to the Rules of the Supreme Court. These changes include: who may act as representative plaintiffs, settlement offers, and contingency agreements.

PUBLIC TRUSTEE REPLACES REGISTRAR

Changes have been made to the rules which dictate who may act as a representative plaintiff in applications for certification, where all the members of the group are under disability. The old Rule 7A.04 allowed a parent, guardian or the registrar to act, whereas now the registrar is replaced with the public trustee.

The same is true for Rule 56.30 with regards to probate and administration of the estate of a mentally disabled person. This rule has been updated to reflect that any role played by the registrar should now be changed to the public trustee.

SETTLEMENT OFFERS UNDER RULE 20A.08

As of February 1, 2013, changes will impact the current provisions for failing to accept a settlement offer, imposing greater penalties to litigants who fail to accept an offer more favourable to an eventual outcome.

Under the new rules, if the plaintiff makes a settlement offer which is refused and the outcome is more favourable than the offer, the plaintiff will be entitled to double party and party costs plus taxed disbursements after the date of service of the offer.

If the defendant makes a settlement offer and the outcome is no more favourable for the plaintiff than that offer, the defendant will be entitled to party and party costs after the date of the offer.

If the defendant makes a settlement offer which is refused by the plaintiff, and the claim is dismissed at trial, the defendant will be entitled to party and party costs to the date of the offer and double party and party costs thereafter.

There will be a new rule regarding the scale of costs, dictating that once a judgment is awarded under a column of costs, that column cannot later be changed if settlement offer consequences apply.

The substantive cost consequences are not applicable to family proceedings.

The determinative date as to whether the new or old rules will apply is the date of the hearing of the matter. Therefore, offers and applications made under the old rules heard after February 1, 2013 will be considered under the new rules unless a successful argument is made otherwise.

CONTINGENCY AGREEMENT

While contingency agreements formally had to be filed with the court under Rule 55.16, this is now repealed and the requirement is only to provide a copy of the signed agreement to the client.

The foregoing is intended for general information only. If you have any questions, or for a detailed list and background of our insurance practice area, please visit www.stewartmckelvey.com.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

Client Update: Adopting the changes – amendments to the New Brunswick Family Services Act lead to opening of sealed adoption records

June 4, 2018

Vasu Sivapalan and Meg Collins On May 5, 2017, An Act Respecting the Opening of Sealed Adoption Records (“Act”) received royal assent, leading to significant changes for birth parents and adoptees across the province. As…

Read More

Client Update – Protecting the innocent in property insurance: recent amendments to Nova Scotia’s Insurance Act limit “criminal or intentional act” exclusion clauses

May 29, 2018

Jennifer Taylor Recent amendments to the Nova Scotia Insurance Act are designed “to protect the financial interests of an innocent person when the person’s property is damaged by another person with whom that person shares…

Read More

Countdown to Cannabis: A Stewart McKelvey Newsletter: The legalization of cannabis: 7 reasons why employers should take notice

May 24, 2018

Brian G. Johnston, QC Cannabis legalization is coming. The legislation is expected to pass by July with legalization becoming effective by September. Employers should take notice because: 1. There is already a lot of cannabis…

Read More

Client Update: Negligence: what is reasonably foreseeable?

May 24, 2018

Janet Clark and Sean Seviour A recent decision from the Supreme Court of Canada clarifies determination of what is “reasonably foreseeable”: Rankin (Rankin’s Garage & Sales) v J.J., 2018 SCC 19.  The case involved two…

Read More

Client Update: Limitation periods & denial of LTD benefits: the NSSC decision in Cameron

May 9, 2018

Jennifer Taylor & Michelle Chai A recent Supreme Court decision tackled two issues that have proven complex in Nova Scotia law: summary judgment and limitation periods. The Plaintiff in Cameron v Nova Scotia Association of…

Read More

Client Update: Medical marijuana found to be undue hardship in safety sensitive positions – the problem of residual impairment

May 1, 2018

Brian G. Johnston, QC The Arbitrator in Lower Churchill Transmission Construction Employers’ Association and IBEW, Local 1620 dismissed a grievance on April 30, 2018 concluding: The Employer did not place the Grievor in employment at…

Read More

Client Update: Benefits plans really do not have to cover the sun, the moon and the stars (and medical cannabis)

April 13, 2018

Rick Dunlop and Richard Jordan Employers, and benefit providers on their behalf, make policy decisions as to what drugs or benefits (including monetary limits) will be covered by benefit plans. The Board of Trustees in…

Read More

Client Update: Court Confirms: Credibility is a Key Factor In Personal Injury Awards (Ryan V. Curlew, 2018 NL SC)

April 10, 2018

Erin Best The decision of Justice Handrigan in Ryan v. Curlew is the first motor vehicle accident personal injury decision to come out of the Newfoundland and Labrador courts in quite some time. The case…

Read More

Client Update: Does your business need a spring privacy tune-up? Breach reporting and Europe’s GDPR are about to hatch

April 6, 2018

Rob Aske The arrival of spring should bring thoughts of renewal… to your privacy practices. Breach reporting under PIPEDA Canada’s federal privacy law known by the acronym PIPEDA (Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act)…

Read More

Client Update: Untenable tenure: discrimination complaint from Indigenous professor dismissed

March 22, 2018

Chad Sullivan Overview An Indigenous law professor filed a human rights complaint against the University of British Columbia claiming the university discriminated against her in failing to consider her less traditional scholarly work as akin…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top