Suburban & Rural Developments & Discussion Thread

[RoshanMcG]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

The Bowtie going up at 67 Tacoma Drive in The Village on Main. Signage indicates Artisans Hair Salon will be relocating here.


Halifax Developments Blog (Photo by David Jackson)

[Dmajackson]

Construction has started at 214 Herring Cove Road in Spryfield just north of the Petro Canada. The approved Development Agreement (Case 20100) is for a four storey apartment building with ground floor commercial.


Halifax Developments Blog (Photo by David Jackson)

[Dmajackson]

New proposal by W.M. Fares for 1200-1216 Cole Harbour Road. This is in the eastern end of the community just west of Bissett Road on the Cole Harbour Area Municipal Recreation lot. The plan is to build a six storey mixed-use building with 88 residential units and 2'124 sq m of ground floor commercial. There will be 60 underground parking along with 66 at-grade spaces located behind the building.

Case 23862 Details

This is actually quite the surprising proposal. Cole Harbour is pretty much the definition of suburban sprawl with low density housing spread out everywhere and the community centre is a strip of commercial along an arterial road (collector highway in this case). This building will be oriented along the street with individual entrances, the parking lot will be hidden in the rear lot, and there is little setback from the public sidewalk.

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

New proposal by W.M. Fares for 1200-1216 Cole Harbour Road. This is in the eastern end of the community just west of Bissett Road on the Cole Harbour Area Municipal Recreation lot. The plan is to build a six storey mixed-use building with 88 residential units and 2'124 sq m of ground floor commercial. There will be 60 underground parking along with 66 at-grade spaces located behind the building.

Case 23862 Details

This is actually quite the surprising proposal. Cole Harbour is pretty much the definition of suburban sprawl with low density housing spread out everywhere and the community centre is a strip of commercial along an arterial road (collector highway in this case). This building will be oriented along the street with individual entrances, the parking lot will be hidden in the rear lot, and there is little setback from the public sidewalk.

I know this area very well as the site is where an old Shell gas station used to be. I hope they elevate the site before construction as its a swamp. The lands in question are what the locals refer to as the run. It runs all the way down to Lake Bisset and when it rains the lands get very boggy. The Jennifer Apartments next door were notorious in times past for flooding on the lowest floor.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by RoshanMcG

There is an interesting article on CBC today about a fraudster and how his actions caused a delay at a Tacoma Drive construction site - I'm assuming it could be this one.

It occurred to me, that often on this site, members observe unexplained delays in construction. This type of cause (fraudulent activity) wouldn't have been one that I'd have guessed at, but it makes me wonder how much this actually happens in construction.

It also puzzles me how this continues to happen, and that there perhaps needs to be a national database of fraud (if there isn't already one), as it seems that things that happen in one province can still go seemingly unknown in another, with the victim not discovering the previous crimes until it's too late.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-...ving-1.6283845

What was supposed to be a three-month concrete job in early 2020 for a new development on Tacoma Drive in Dartmouth dragged on far longer. One day, Jahanbiglary said, Standard Paving simply left without finishing.

"He tried to manipulate us to pay him extra money because he was getting lawyers involved," said Jahanbiglary.

Ross subsequently turned around and placed a lien on the property for $416,000 — double the original contract. He claimed Pinnacle was the cause of the delays.

Crucially, the lien threatened to tie up the project's financing, as banks are leery of advancing more funds if a contractor is owed money and the unpaid bill is registered to the property. Faced with the prospect of the project being stalled by lengthy legal action, Pinnacle president Mike Yari settled out of court.

Standard Paving seemed to check out when he hired them, Jahanbiglary said. But what those checks didn't reveal was that little more than a month before, an Ontario judge had frozen Ross's worldwide assets and bank accounts.

I found this bit of info interesting, as I used to be familiar with several of the local paving/construction companies due to a series of summer jobs I had years ago as a student. When I read the name Standard Paving, my first thought was that it used to be a reputable company, but here's where it goes awry:

The name Standard Paving holds a high reputation in road-building circles in Nova Scotia. It worked on the Halifax Armdale Rotary and the Bedford Highway, one of the city's main traffic arteries. It was still recognizable in the Halifax area in the early 1990s, until it was rebranded by its owner, concrete giant Lafarge.

The storied Standard Paving of the past, however, is not Ross's Standard Paving. Whether by coincidence or calculation, it's the name he chose when he renamed his company, Interpave Contractors Ltd., in 2014.

This has led to real-life confusion. A May 2020 letter from a Toronto law firm representing Lafarge demanded Ross stop using the name and trademark. There have "been actual instances of confusion amongst members of the public," according to the letter, which accused Ross of trading off on the "goodwill and reputation" of Lafarge's Ontario Standard Paving subsidiary.

Just wow...

[kph06]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I found this bit of info interesting, as I used to be familiar with several of the local paving/construction companies due to a series of summer jobs I had years ago as a student. When I read the name Standard Paving, my first thought was that it used to be a reputable company, but here's where it goes awry:.

Its interesting, locally, its seems like a cyclical nature on the civil works side at least, it seems like many don't make it past the second generation. Big names 30-40 years ago fade away and others take their place.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by kph06

Its interesting, locally, its seems like a cyclical nature on the civil works side at least, it seems like many don't make it past the second generation. Big names 30-40 years ago fade away and others take their place.

Yes and no. Some companies that got a lot of government contracts 30+ years ago are still doing well (Municipal and Ocean come to mind), while others fade away or are swallowed up by larger companies.

In this case, Lafarge bought out Standard, but years later this fraudster revived the name for his company, presumably to take advantage of the previous company's good reputation. I'm thinking that if Lafarge had considered protecting the Standard name legally, this guy wouldn't have been able to do this.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I'm thinking that if Lafarge had considered protecting the Standard name legally, this guy wouldn't have been able to do this.

They did. Surely you caught this part: "A May 2020 letter from a Toronto law firm representing Lafarge demanded Ross stop using the name and trademark".

It's actually a tough thing to police and do anything practical about.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

They did. Surely you caught this part: "A May 2020 letter from a Toronto law firm representing Lafarge demanded Ross stop using the name and trademark".

It's actually a tough thing to police and do anything practical about.

I did, but I thought it must have been a mistake. How could the same business name be registered to two companies in the same province at once? Is the system that poorly configured?

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I did, but I thought it must have been a mistake. How could the same business name be registered to two companies in the same province at once? Is the system that poorly configured?

Probably so. Are you surprised?

Excuse me, but I need to go out and set up my new business that I've just started. I think I'll call it Tesla, Inc.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

How could the same business name be registered to two companies in the same province at once? Is the system that poorly configured?

No, you couldn't register two active corporations with the same name - the Registry system wouldn't allow it. But in practical terms, it's really a matter solely between the individuals or corporations who want to use the name - the Registry is a passive entity which doesn't really get involved. It has no real enforcement function.

But registration is meaningless to those who don't care about it anyway (kind of like firearms in that way). It's not as if it's policed. There's really nothing to stop anyone who wants to operate a business under any name they choose until someone else calls them on it and takes legal action. And even then, there's nothing stopping it from happening again (and again and again). It's essentially a free-for-all, a game of legal Whac-A-Mole.

Enforcement is really only successfully carried out by companies which are very vigilant about use of their names and brands and have the legal muscle to do something about it.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Probably so. Are you surprised?

Excuse me, but I need to go out and set up my new business that I've just started. I think I'll call it Tesla, Inc.

I was surprised, although I suppose I shouldn't be.

Good luck with your new business! I hear that electric cars are profitable these days, so that might be a direction in which you want to take your business. Cool name selection, by the way. I thought I had maybe heard it before, but probably not.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

No, you couldn't register two active corporations with the same name - the Registry system wouldn't allow it. But in practical terms, it's really a matter solely between the individuals or corporations who want to use the name - the Registry is a passive entity which doesn't really get involved. It has no real enforcement function.

But registration is meaningless to those who don't care about it anyway (kind of like firearms in that way). It's not as if it's policed. There's really nothing to stop anyone who wants to operate a business under any name they choose until someone else calls them on it and takes legal action. And even then, there's nothing stopping it from happening again (and again and again). It's essentially a free-for-all, a game of legal Whac-A-Mole.

Enforcement is really only successfully carried out by companies which are very vigilant about use of their names and brands and have the legal muscle to do something about it.

That's really interesting and kind of surprising that, in this day and age, with all the software and online options available to us, that a simple national database can't be kept to protect trademarks such as this. It's also kinda pathetic that it's up to the real owner to police this sort of activity and then spend money to defend themselves from a perpetrator using (and damaging the reputation of) a name that is rightfully theirs.

I suppose it's a just another case where I assumed there were more controls in place than actually exists. The more I learn, the less confidence I have in 'the system'...

[Keith P.]

There is a nagging thought in the back of my mind that the original company name was something like Standard Paving (Maritime) Ltd. So maybe that slight variation allowed it to slip through.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

There is a nagging thought in the back of my mind that the original company name was something like Standard Paving (Maritime) Ltd. So maybe that slight variation allowed it to slip through.

I can see that happening, much like the dated names, such as Acme Roadrunner Seed Company 1988, or whatever...

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

There is a nagging thought in the back of my mind that the original company name was something like Standard Paving (Maritime) Ltd. So maybe that slight variation allowed it to slip through.

No, not quite.

What happened in this case is that in January 2007, Standard Paving Maritime Ltd., at that point owned by Lafarge Canada, had its name struck off the Nova Scotia register at its own request. Lafarge continued to operate (and still does) a subsidiary company in Ontario under the name Standard Paving.

In October 2007, Shane Ross incorporated and registered in NS a company called Interpave Contractors Ltd. In 2014 he changed that name to Standard Paving Ltd.

In 2017 Lafarge Canada Inc. registered in NS the business name (not a corporation, just the name) Standard Paving Maritime, and that name's registration continues in good standing.

In the meantime, Ross has on several occasions allowed his various registrations to lapse by not filing annual statements and re-appointments, but appears typically to have had them reinstated by payment of fees (there's a grace period for that but I don't recall what it is - would have to look it up). And in fact, it looks like the annual renewal of his current registration of Standard Paving Ltd. is about a month overdue.

The really important point, though, is that contrary to popular belief, registration does not in and of itself offer any protection against unscrupulous folks from appropriating and profiting from the use of your name. That's purely a civil law matter (i.e., ya gotta sue).

The enabling statute (the Corporations Registration Act) does say that a business which is registered "shall not carry on business under a name identical with that of" any other registered corporation, partnership or individual, "or so nearly resembling the same as to be calculated to deceive". but there is no enforcement power whatsoever granted by the act, other than that a company which fails to keep its registration current can be fined $50 for every day it carries on business without a valid registration, but those fines are virtually never levied.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

That's really interesting and kind of surprising that, in this day and age, with all the software and online options available to us, that a simple national database can't be kept to protect trademarks such as this.

That's really not the purpose of the various provincial corporate registration statutes. And, as I said before, registration is irrelevant to those who don't care what the statute says anyway.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Thanks for the explanation, SG. As usual it appears that the quick answer is "it's complicated".

It does seem like a situation where there is room for improvement, such as automatic protection (i.e. enforcement) for the owner of a business name, and perhaps a minimum period after a name is dropped, like 5 years (arbitrarily), before another business can assume the name.

Even then, though, it would be complicated and perhaps still unenforceable.

The end result is the same, as always. Caveat Emptor.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

It does seem like a situation where there is room for improvement, such as automatic protection (i.e. enforcement) for the owner of a business name

But again, that's really not the purpose of the legislation.

And again, that sort of protection already exists in the civil law.

It seems as if what you're talking about is some sort of state-run business protection apparatus with policing and enforcement capability. Frankly, I don't see a need for that, and as a taxpayer, I'm not interested in paying for it. Corporations ought to be able to take care of themselves, and currently the law deems them capable of doing so. That's as it should be, as far as I'm concerned.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

But again, that's really not the purpose of the legislation.

And again, that sort of protection already exists in the civil law.

It seems as if what you're talking about is some sort of state-run business protection apparatus with policing and enforcement capability. Frankly, I don't see a need for that, and as a taxpayer, I'm not interested in paying for it. Corporations ought to be able to take care of themselves. and currently the law deems them capable of doing so. That's as it should be, as far as I'm concerned.

Not really. Although perhaps I picked a roundabout way of saying it, Lafarge in this case, is not who I would be concerned about. It's the regular citizen who might lose his shirt (as in the examples given in the article) by putting trust into a well-known and trusted business name, only to find out later that they were being scammed. From what you describe, it seems all too easy for a fraudster to do this, and the only recourse the victims have is to pony up some cash for lawyers to fight it out for them and hope they don't burn up their life savings (in addition to the money they've already lost) in doing so. But it's more than money, time is important as well.

So, maybe I'm off base here, but cavalierly saying the system is good enough, because they can just sue clearly isn't enough. If there were better protections in place, maybe it would act as a deterrent.

Regardless, I'm speaking far out of my area of expertise here, so I'm sure there are some key points I'm missing. The above was written just for clarification so that you understand where I'm coming from. No need to use up the forum discussing further.