The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal is visiting the Sydney area in September 2024, including hearing three appeals on September 25 and 26 at the Membertou Trade and Convention Centre in Membertou. This is the first time the Court will sit outside the Law Courts in Halifax.
This inaugural event will help advance a better understanding of the role of the Judiciary and the Courts in our society and will introduce more people to the work of the Court of Appeal specifically. The visit will also provide important opportunities for legal education, both for judges and lawyers.
A courtroom and related facilities will be set up within the Membertou Trade and Convention Centre, and like most court proceedings, these hearings are open to the public.
Membertou will hold a Welcome Ceremony for the Court on Tuesday, September 24 at 11:00 a.m. at the Trade and Convention Centre, 50 Maillard Street, Membertou, Nova Scotia. This ceremony, which is open to the public and media, will include formal remarks from Chief Terry Paul and Chief Justice Michael J. Wood.
Welcome Message from the Chief Justice of Nova Scotia
The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal is honoured to preside in Cape Breton for this first-of-its-kind sitting outside of the Law Courts in Halifax.
As the highest Court in the province, the Court of Appeal hears civil, criminal, and family law appeals from various courts and tribunals. This sitting is part of our efforts to introduce more people to the work of the Court. Providing citizens an opportunity to see first-hand how the Court of Appeal operates, and the types of matters it hears, augments our efforts to increase access to justice and further educates the public about the role of the Courts in our society.
We greatly appreciate the warm welcome we have received from the local community. This visit is also an important opportunity for our judges, who will be engaging with members of the Membertou community, the Cape Breton Bar, and the local Judiciary.
To everyone observing our Court this week, I hope you find the experience interesting. Whether you’re a practicing lawyer, a student considering your career options, or someone who has a general interest in the justice system, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal appreciates you taking the time to be part of this unique sitting.
The Hon. Michael J. Wood
Chief Justice of Nova Scotia
Nova Scotia Court of Appeal Docket
Membertou Trade & Convention Centre
50 Autwen Ma'sl Awti / 50 Maillard Street
Kluskap Room
CA-525783 - Nova Scotia Board of Registration of Embalmers and Funeral Directors Vs. Joseph Curry
Appeal panel: Chief Justice Michael J. Wood; Justice Peter M.S. Bryson; Justice Cindy A. Bourgeois
Counsel: Sean MacDonald (Appellant); Stephen Jamael (Respondent)
Background: Mr. Curry is a funeral director licenced under the Embalmers and Funeral Directors Act (“the Act”). On December 13, 2021, in the course of his duties, Mr. Curry cremated remains which had been delivered to the Forest Haven Memorial Gardens. Mr. Curry had spoken to the family of the deceased, a female, in advance of the remains being delivered and proceeded to undertake the cremation.
Tragically, the remains contained in the bag delivered to Forest Haven and labelled as being the person Mr. Curry was expecting, was a male. This was not discovered until after the cremation had occurred. The Nova Scotia Board of Registration of Embalmers and Funeral Directors (“the Board”) brought an inquiry under the Act, and after a hearing found Mr. Curry had breached the Act, regulations made under it, and the Code of Professional Conduct governing his profession. The Board revoked Mr. Curry’s licence.
Mr. Curry appealed to the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, challenging the Board’s decision. At that hearing the parties agreed about certain facts. They agreed that at all times, there was a label affixed to the bag which identified the remains. It had been placed on the bag by the Medical Examiner’s office. The label was incorrect – it identified the remains as belonging to a female person whose family directed it be sent to Forest Haven. In reality, the remains in the bag belonged to another deceased, a male.
The mislabeled remains were released by the Medical Examiner’s office to a third party transport service. The transport service delivered the mislabelled remains to Forest Haven. At no time did the transport service or Mr. Curry open the bag to confirm that the label placed by the Medical Examiner’s office was correct.
After hearing from both the Board and Mr. Curry, the Supreme Court judge concluded that neither the Act nor regulations contained a requirement for a funeral director to independently confirm the identify of labelled remains received from the Medical Examiner’s office. The judge further found that the written reasons provided by the Board in finding Mr. Curry guilty of infringing the Act and Code of Conduct, were vague and insufficient to understand how it made its decision. The judge set aside the Board’s decision and re-instated Mr. Curry’s licence.
On appeal: The Board has appealed the Supreme Court judge’s decision. It argues he incorrectly interpreted the Act, and that Mr. Curry was obligated to prevent the wrongful cremation from occurring. The Board also says its written decision was clear. It is asking the Court of Appeal to set aside the judge’s decision and re-instate the Board’s original finding and revocation of Mr. Curry’s license.
Mr. Curry argues the Supreme Court judge’s conclusions were correct and that the Board’s appeal should be dismissed.
CA-526202 - The Department of Community Services Vs. Marie McIntyre, The Workers' Compensation Board of Nova Scotia, The Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal, and The Attorney General of Nova Scotia, Representing His Majesty the King in Right of the Province of Nova Scotia
Appeal panel: Justice David P.S. Farrar; Justice Anne S. Derrick; Justice Carole A. Beaton
Counsel: Thomas Groves (Appellant - DCS); Stephen Lawlor (Respondent - McIntyre); Paula Arab, K.C. (Respondent - WCB); Alison Hickey (Respondent - WCAT)
Background: In the fall of 2012, Ms. McIntyre was employed by the Department of Community Services (“the DCS”). She was also working for a second employer. On November 5, 2012, in the course of her employment with the DCS, she was involved in a motor vehicle accident. Ms. McIntyre sustained multiple injuries and as a result, she received ongoing medical treatment and physiotherapy.
Ms. McIntyre applied for benefits from the Workers' Compensation Board and received full temporary earnings benefits. The medical documents submitted by Ms. McIntyre indicated she was undergoing treatment and was not able to return to work.
As a result of an investigation commenced by the Board, it came to light that in December of 2012, Ms. McIntyre had returned to work at her second job. The Board terminated her benefits, saying she had failed to meet her obligations under s. 84 of the Workers’ Compensation Act. That section says:
Duty to mitigate and co-operate
84 (1) Every worker shall
(a) take all reasonable steps to reduce or eliminate any permanent impairment and loss of earnings resulting from an injury;
(b) seek out and co-operate in any medical aid or treatment that, in the opinion of the Board, promotes the worker’s recovery;
(c) take all reasonable steps to provide to the Board full and accurate information on any matter relevant to a claim for compensation; and
(d) notify the Board immediately of any change in circumstances that affects or may affect the worker’s initial or continuing entitlement to compensation.
(2) The Board may suspend, reduce or terminate any compensation otherwise payable to a worker pursuant to this Part where the worker fails to comply with subsection (1).
In terminating her benefits, the Board said that Ms. McIntyre had misrepresented her ability to work and failed to disclose her earning from her second job. Ms. McIntyre appealed the termination of her benefits to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal.
In his decision, the Appeal’s Commissioner agreed with the Board that Ms. McIntyre had failed to comply with her obligations in s. 84(1). However, also he found the Board had never advised Ms. McIntyre of the obligations contained in that section nor did it warn her of the consequences of failing to comply, and because of this, her benefits were re-instated.
On appeal: The DCS now appeals. In an earlier application, it was given permission to bring an appeal narrowed to a single issue. That is, did the Appeal Commission err in deciding that the Board has an obligation to advise a worker of their obligations contained in s. 84(1) and the consequences of not complying with them?
CA-530767 - Paul Ward Vs. Coralie Murphy
Appeal panel: Chief Justice Michael J. Wood; Justice Elizabeth Van den Eynden; Justice Robin Gogan
Counsel: Paul Ward (Appellant - Self represented); Theresa O'Leary (Respondent)
Background: The parties are the parents of a 10-year-old child. Mr. Ward was ordered to pay child support to Ms. Murphy based upon his income as determined by a judge of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court (Family Division). The judge took into account his wages and Employment Insurance benefits as well as the performance of his company which owned and operated rental properties.
Mr. Ward made an application to change the amount of support he had been ordered to pay. Another judge of the Supreme Court reviewed the financial circumstances of Mr. Ward and the company. She adjusted the child support based on her assessment of the financial information provided by Mr. Ward and ordered him to pay costs to Ms. Murphy.
On appeal: Mr. Ward is appealing that decision. He says the judge made errors in how she considered the company’s income and expenses and that she also should not have ordered him pay costs to Ms. Murphy. Ms. Murphy says the decision is reasonable and should not be changed.
Visiting the Court of Appeal
Visitors are subject to security screening, as they would be at a standard courthouse.
Please remove hats and sunglasses and avoid wearing clothing that may contain a message or otherwise breach the objectivity of the courtroom.
Without permission of the Court, no person shall use an electronic device, such as a phone, tablet, computer, camera, or audio recorder, in a courtroom:
- to carry on a conversation while court is in session,
- to take photographs or record or produce an image,
- to transmit audio or video recording,
- which interferes with the proceedings or the recording of them by the court’s systems by producing any noise, vibration, or electronic signal
Visitors in the courtroom may:
- keep a phone on in vibrate mode only
- receive or transmit general text only, if it does not interfere with proceedings or the courtroom recording system
- transmit information about court proceedings while court is in session, for publication and by any means (including X, texting, e-mail, etc.) unless the panel of judges orders otherwise
Members of the media (only) may use electronic devices to record the audio (only) of the proceedings to augment their notetaking, but not for broadcast.
Enjoy your visit to the Court.