Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The plaintiff sought an adjournment of trial after discovering new municipal documents late in the proceedings.

• HRM opposed the adjournment, arguing that the documents were privileged and irrelevant to the pleaded issues.

• The court considered whether the timing and relevance of the disclosure justified delaying the ongoing trial.

• Allegations of selective disclosure and procedural unfairness were raised but not conclusively resolved at this stage.

• The court found it necessary to grant a short adjournment to preserve trial fairness and address the disclosure concerns.

• Privilege and admissibility of the newly surfaced documents were left to be resolved later by the trial judge.

Background and procedural context

Annapolis Group Inc. is a land developer engaged in a long-standing legal dispute with the Halifax Regional Municipality (HRM) regarding the development of lands it owns. The underlying civil action includes claims of constructive taking (de facto expropriation), misfeasance in public office, and unjust enrichment. The plaintiff alleges that HRM deliberately blocked the development of its lands for years while benefiting from the lands being used as public green space. The trial had already begun when the present motion arose.

During the proceedings, Annapolis discovered the existence of municipal documents it believed were relevant and had not been disclosed by HRM. These documents came to light following testimony from an HRM planner and were found through a combination of late production and Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. Annapolis brought a motion under Rule 4.20 of the Nova Scotia Civil Procedure Rules to adjourn the trial in order to review the new material and determine its impact on the case.

Arguments on adjournment and fairness

Annapolis argued that it had only recently become aware of a previously undisclosed recommendation by HRM staff to the Province to designate the Annapolis lands as Regional Park. It claimed this information had not been provided in the regular disclosure process and could support its allegation of bad faith or constructive taking. Annapolis maintained that without a short adjournment, it would be unable to fairly pursue its claim, as key evidence might remain unexamined or excluded.

HRM opposed the motion, arguing that the documents were irrelevant to the pleadings, covered by solicitor-client or settlement privilege, or simply duplicative of other evidence already disclosed. HRM also contended that granting an adjournment after the trial had commenced would be prejudicial and unnecessary, particularly since the plaintiff had already called multiple witnesses and had ample time to build its case.

Court’s analysis and decision

Justice Beaton recognized that trial fairness must be the overarching concern when considering an adjournment motion. The judge noted that although the trial was underway, the newly surfaced documents were potentially significant, especially in the context of Annapolis’ misfeasance and constructive taking claims. While HRM’s arguments about privilege and relevance could carry weight, these were not suitable for immediate resolution in a motion to adjourn. Instead, they should be decided by the trial judge with full evidentiary context.

The court observed that there was at least an arguable case that the documents were responsive to prior production requests. Additionally, the judge found that the plaintiff’s discovery of the documents was not the result of delay or inattention, but rather of evolving information during the trial itself. Balancing the interests of both parties, Justice Beaton granted a brief adjournment of the trial, allowing Annapolis to review the materials and prepare for their potential use, subject to later rulings on admissibility and privilege.

Conclusion and result

The court granted a short adjournment of the trial to allow the plaintiff to address the late disclosure of potentially relevant municipal records. It declined to make any ruling on the admissibility or privileged nature of the documents, leaving those issues to the trial judge. The decision reflects the court’s focus on maintaining procedural fairness, especially in complex public law cases involving allegations of bad faith and constructive expropriation by a municipal government.