Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The appeal challenged the motion judge’s decision permitting respondents to add 3312739 Nova Scotia Limited as a third party.

• Appellants alleged errors in legal analysis, unreasonable findings, and misapprehension of evidence by the motion judge.

• They also claimed the judge exhibited a reasonable apprehension of bias.

• The costs order against the appellants was asserted to contravene the rules of natural justice.

• The appellate court applied the standard limiting intervention to clear error of law or substantial injustice in discretionary decisions.

• The Court found no error in principle nor manifest injustice in the costs award.

Facts of the case

Allan Robert Buteau and Amy Lynn Buteau commenced proceedings against Maritime Permanent Roofing Ltd, Interlock Roofing Ltd, Interlock Industries (Alberta) Ltd, I.E.L. Manufacturing Ltd, Interlock Group of Companies Ltd, Interlock Metal Roofing Systems Ltd also known as Interlock Lifetime Roofing Systems Ltd, and other Interlock-related companies, as well as Gilles Bourgeois, Carole Rundle, and Mark Wenzel (President). During the proceedings, the respondents successfully moved before Justice Frank P. Hoskins for permission to file and issue a Notice of Claim against a third party, 3312739 Nova Scotia Limited. The motion judge granted this request and ordered the appellants to pay costs on that motion in an amount to be determined. The appellants appealed, arguing that the judge erred in his legal reasoning, made unreasonable findings, misinterpreted or misapprehended the evidence, and exhibited a reasonable apprehension of bias. They also argued that the costs order was contrary to natural justice.

Outcome of the decisions

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal heard the appeal on March 19, 2025. The Court granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal. It found the decision to add 3312739 Nova Scotia Limited as a third party was a discretionary one made in accordance with correct legal principles. The Court concluded that no clear error of law or substantial injustice was demonstrated. It determined that the appellants did not meet the onerous burden of establishing a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the judge. The appellate court also found no error in principle or manifest injustice in the costs order, especially as the respondents had sought only $750.00 on the motion below. The Court ordered costs on the appeal fixed at $1,500.00 inclusive of disbursements, payable in the cause: if the appellants are successful below, the costs will be paid to them; if unsuccessful, the costs will be payable to the respondents.

Discussion of policy terms and clauses at issue

The decisions contain no discussion of policy terms or specific contractual clauses. The issues determined were purely procedural, concerning the addition of a third party, judicial discretion, allegations of bias, and the awarding of costs.