Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Berrigan Surveys Ltd. appealed a Small Claims Court decision in which Adjudicator Raffi Balmanoukian declined jurisdiction over a contract claim for survey work valued at $2,070.00.
   
• The adjudicator found he was precluded from deciding the dispute by s. 10(a) of the Small Claims Court Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 430, on the basis that adjudicating the defence would require consideration of substantive rights to land.
   
• Berrigan argued the adjudicator erred in law by misinterpreting s. 10(a), as the claim was purely contractual — whether survey work was performed in accordance with the contract for services — not a claim to recover land or an interest therein.
   
• Ms. Cranston maintained that the survey contained errors affecting metes and bounds of land to which she believed she was entitled, raising issues of rights in rem.
   
• Justice Rowe disagreed with the adjudicator's reasoning, finding the primary issue was whether a debt was owing on a services agreement, not the accuracy of the survey's content as a professional opinion on land.
   
• The appeal was granted and the matter was remitted to the Small Claims Court for adjudication; no costs were sought by the appellant.

Facts of the case

Berrigan Surveys Ltd. (Berrigan) performed survey work for Ms. Bonnie Cranston and subsequently claimed $2,070.00 in contract for those services before the Small Claims Court of Nova Scotia. Adjudicator Raffi Balmanoukian issued a decision on April 17, 2025, reported as Berrigan Surveys Ltd. v. Cranston, 2025 NSSM 16, in which he declined to adjudicate the claim on the basis that he lacked jurisdiction. Ms. Cranston's defence was that Berrigan had breached the agreement for want of quality, and she maintained that the survey had cost her in terms of errors relating to the metes and bounds of land she believed she was entitled to by law. She alluded to seeking damages, though the court noted that was outside the scope of the appeal before it. Berrigan, represented by counsel Vince Neary, appealed the adjudicator's decision to the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia. The matter was heard on January 22, 2026, in Bridgewater, Nova Scotia, before Justice Diane Rowe. Ms. Cranston was self-represented.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The central statutory provision was s. 10(a) of the Small Claims Court Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 430, which limits the Small Claims Court's jurisdiction by precluding it from deciding claims concerning the recovery of land, an estate, or an interest therein. Adjudicator Balmanoukian interpreted this provision broadly, finding that if a matter before the Small Claims Court necessarily required consideration of substantive rights to land, the court lacked jurisdiction even where title to land was not itself the cause of action or defence. Applying that interpretation, he concluded that adjudicating Ms. Cranston's quality-based defence would require him to consider the content of the survey as it related to metes and bounds — that is, rights in rem — thereby engaging the jurisdictional bar.

Reasoning and analysis

Berrigan advanced two grounds of appeal: that the adjudicator erred in law by misinterpreting s. 10(a), and, in the alternative, that there had been a breach of natural justice. Justice Rowe dismissed the natural justice ground, finding it was not made out on the record, as the adjudicator had spent a considerable amount of time considering the substance of the claim with the parties in court. On the error of law ground, Berrigan distinguished the cases cited by the adjudicator by noting that each involved parties with a shared property line, where the determination of land boundaries and rights was at the core of the dispute, placing those matters outside the court's statutory jurisdiction. By contrast, Berrigan submitted that the issue before the Small Claims Court was purely whether survey work had been performed in accordance with the contract for services — not the content of the resulting report. Justice Rowe agreed. She found that the primary issue in Berrigan's claim was whether a debt was owing on a services agreement, acknowledging the tension that arises when a professional opinion about land is the subject matter of the contract. However, she noted that questions going to the accuracy of the survey's content as a professional opinion on land would be more squarely before the Nova Scotia Supreme Court; to that extent, the adjudicator was correct that such matters fall outside Small Claims Court jurisdiction. The underlying contractual debt claim, however, did not.

Ruling and overall outcome

Justice Rowe set aside Adjudicator Balmanoukian's decision as an error of law and allowed the appeal. The matter was remitted to the Small Claims Court for adjudication on the merits. Berrigan, the successful appellant, did not seek costs, and none were ordered.