DLF Law Practice Incorporated v. McDonald et al.
DLF Law Practice Incorporated, a body corporate
Law Firm / Organization
Self Represented
Donn Fraser
Law Firm / Organization
Self Represented
Mary Jane McDonald
Law Firm / Organization
McInnes Cooper
Lawyer(s)

Gavin Giles

Eric Atkinson
Law Firm / Organization
McInnes Cooper
Lawyer(s)

Gavin Giles

SPI Et Pomquet Inc., a body corporate
Law Firm / Organization
McInnes Cooper
Lawyer(s)

Gavin Giles

Jennifer Hamilton Upham
Law Firm / Organization
McInnes Cooper
Lawyer(s)

Gavin Giles

Kate Harris
Law Firm / Organization
McInnes Cooper
Lawyer(s)

Gavin Giles

Joel Sellers
Law Firm / Organization
McInnes Cooper
Lawyer(s)

Gavin Giles

Julie MacPhee
Law Firm / Organization
McInnes Cooper
Lawyer(s)

Gavin Giles

Mary Jane Saunders
Law Firm / Organization
McInnes Cooper
Lawyer(s)

Gavin Giles

Dennis James
Law Firm / Organization
Self Represented
Gerald Green
Law Firm / Organization
McInnes Cooper
Lawyer(s)

Gavin Giles

3241964 Nova Scotia Limited (previously known as Carm Legal Services Inc.), a body corporate
Law Firm / Organization
McInnes Cooper
Lawyer(s)

Gavin Giles

The legal partnership known as the firm Patterson Law
Law Firm / Organization
Patterson Law
Lawyer(s)

Michael P. Scott

Case Overview

  • Plaintiffs: DLF Law Practice Incorporated (DLF) and Donn Fraser.
  • Defendants: Mary Jane McDonald, Eric Atkinson, SPI Et Pomquet Inc., various former partners of the dissolved firm Mac, Mac & Mac (MMM), and the firm Patterson Law.
  • Claims:
    • Action 525281: Allegations of conspiracy and accessory liability for breaches of fiduciary duty by former MMM partners who later joined Patterson Law, claiming the dissolution was orchestrated to harm the plaintiffs.
    • Action 521514: Defamation claim against Julie MacPhee regarding internal communications about Mr. Fraser.

Motion for Security for Costs

  • Defendants sought security for costs, asserting the plaintiffs might not be able to pay should they lose.
  • Security for costs is governed by Rule 45, aiming to protect defendants if they encounter undue difficulty in recovering costs.

Key Considerations in Decision

  • Legal Principles: Judge Norton reviewed precedent and the requirement that security for costs must balance access to justice with fair protection for defendants.
  • Court’s Analysis: The judge found no sufficient evidence that plaintiffs acted insolvently or had unresolved costs judgments. While they have unpaid costs in other cases, these are either under appeal or within the appeal period.

Decision

  • Ruling: The motion for security for costs was dismissed, as ordering security was deemed unfair at this stage.
  • Costs Awarded: Plaintiffs were awarded costs of $750 each from the McInnes Cooper clients and Patterson Law, to be paid immediately.
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
PIC No. 525281 and PIC No. 521514
Corporate & commercial law
$ 1,500
Plaintiff