Appeal court issues new cost order against New Waterford businessman

A New Waterford businessman wanting to appeal a court order requiring he pay $1,500 in costs has again been tagged with a cost award after his application to file a late appeal was denied.

Justice David Farrar, of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, ordered Roderick Jeffrie now pay an additional $5,000 in costs after rejecting Jeffrie’s arguments that his case was tainted by the inappropriate actions of two Supreme Court justices and a Sydney lawyer.

Jeffrie alleged that Justice Michael Wood and lawyer Sheldon Nathanson had a meeting or discussion about his case without his knowledge.

In his decision released Thursday, Farrar included a portion of the transcript from a February 2015 hearing involving Jeffrie.

“As can be seen from the transcript, Mr. Nathnason had discussions with the prothonotary about setting a date for an appearance before Justice Wood,” said Farrar, adding Wood was not available on the suggested date so nothing occurred.

“Mr. Jeffrie’s continued assertion that there was some sort of clandestine meeting between Mr. Nathanson and Justice Wood is not borne out by the record as he suggests,” wrote Farrar.

Jeffrie also took issue with a decision by Justice Robin Gogan who made the $1,500 cost order after Jeffrie failed to file proper documentation.

“There is nothing on this record that suggests that Justice Gogan acted in anything other than objective, neutral and reasonable manner in awarding costs,” concluded Farrar.

Gogan’s order flows from an action brought against Jeffrie by a Sydney investor, represented by Nathanson. The action included Jeffrie and two of his companies involved in the seafood industry.

When the file first appeared before Gogan, she declared a conflict (involving the investor) who stated she would not be able to do anything substantive on the file because of that conflict.

In October 2016, the case was once again before Gogan during which Jeffrie’s lawyer served notice he would no longer be representing him. Jeffrie did not attend the hearing.

Gogan informed the lawyer that Jeffrie would have to comply with the civil procedural rules and file either a notice of new counsel or notice to be self-represented. If such documentation was not filed, the lawyer would then have to bring forth a formal motion to withdraw.

Gogan cautioned if the case was to proceed with a motion from the lawyer, there could be “cost consequences.”

Nothing was filed by Jeffrie and a motion hearing was held in November during which Jeffrie confirmed he no longer wanted the services of his lawyer.

On behalf of his client, Nathanson requested $1,000 in costs but Gogan reduced that amount to $500 for Jeffrie and each of his two companies.

Further, Gogan instructed that each of the parties involved would receive a copy of the order and have 24 hours to raise an objection.

The cost order was issued in Dec. 29, 2016 with an appeal expiry date of Jan. 13, 2017. The order was executed against Jeffrie on Jan. 16, 2017.

In filing his appeal, Jeffrie claimed no costs should have been awarded against him because the judge (Gogan) was improperly motivated by her relationship with Nathanson’s client.

In his decision, Farrar said Gogan properly declared her conflict from the outset and further advised of potential costs if Jeffrie failed to file proper documentation.

Farrar again noted that Jeffrie was served with a copy of the cost order and knew objections needed to be raised within 24 hours. He did nothing.

Jeffrie claimed he did nothing because he didn’t think the order could be issued without his consent. Farrar said such evidence was not credible.

“It is more than mere coincidence that Mr. Jeffrie did not take any steps to attempt to appeal the order until Feb. 9, 2017, just three days after the execution order was served on his bank,” said Farrar.

The judge said had Jeffrie simply followed the rules, he would have avoided the unnecessary motion to have his lawyer removed from the case.