In a September 4, 2026 ruling, the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia refused a second adjournment of a municipal demolition application, but gave the property owner a further opportunity to file evidence about work on the building.
In Cape Breton Regional Municipality v. Arapis, 2026 NSSC 286, Justice Scott R. Campbell denied Petros Arapis’s request on September 4, 2026. At the time, the municipality’s application was scheduled for a September 25, 2026 hearing, and the decision left that date in place.
This report concerns the September 4 adjournment ruling, which addressed scheduling and evidence. That decision did not authorize demolition or determine whether the municipality had established its case for removing the Sydney building.
A second request for more time
Cape Breton Regional Municipality began the proceeding in September 2025, seeking demolition and removal of a building it alleged required remediation. Arapis contested the application.
The case had initially been set for a June 2026 hearing. Shortly before that hearing, Arapis sought more time to obtain a lawyer and present updated evidence about the property’s condition.
The municipality wanted the matter resolved but acknowledged at that stage that there was no immediate public-safety issue and that the property’s condition was evolving. It also wanted time to answer any new evidence.
Campbell granted that first adjournment and directed a further appearance to set a new date and filing deadlines. Arapis did not attend. The court subsequently set the September 25 hearing and a July deadline for supplementary affidavits.
An attempt was made to file an affidavit by the deadline, but it was not accepted because it had not been sworn. At an August pre-hearing conference, Arapis again sought an adjournment, saying he needed to present additional evidence. His later submissions also renewed his wish to retain counsel.
Balancing participation against lost hearing time
Under Civil Procedure Rule 5.23, the court had to consider prejudice to the person seeking the adjournment, prejudice to the other party from losing its hearing date, and the public interest in making effective use of court facilities and judicial and staff time.
Campbell recognized that proceeding without a lawyer or without all desired evidence could prejudice Arapis. But the owner had supplied little detail about efforts to retain counsel since the first adjournment and had not attended the appearance at which he was directed to provide an update.
The municipality, meanwhile, stressed finality and the need for an actual hearing on the merits. Although some prejudice from delay could be addressed by costs, the judge also emphasized court time already lost and the repetition of essentially the same reasons for postponement.
Campbell took Arapis’s self-represented status into account, while holding that it did not exempt him from procedural rules. Weighing the circumstances, he was not persuaded to move the hearing again.
Further evidence allowed on defined terms
The judge nevertheless found that Arapis had taken meaningful steps to submit additional evidence by the July deadline. That supported a narrower accommodation instead of another adjournment.
The September order allowed the previously attempted supplementary affidavit to be filed and served initially in unsworn form by September 9. An identical, properly sworn version then had to be filed and served by September 18. The municipality was permitted to file responding affidavit evidence by September 22.
The accommodation did not make an unsworn document sufficient as final affidavit evidence. It provided a way to complete the required formalities without abandoning the scheduled hearing.
The municipality was awarded costs of the adjournment motion regardless of the eventual outcome of its application, with the amount left to the judge hearing the merits. The September 4 decision thus refused further delay while preserving a defined opportunity for the owner to put supplementary evidence before the court.
