COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA
|
|
- Chad Clarke
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Date: November 29, 2018 Docket: CI (Winnipeg Centre Indexed as: Biomedical Commercialization Canada Inc. v. Health Media Inc.; Health Media Network Inc. v. Biomedical Commercialization Canada Inc. et al Cited as: 2018 MBQB 188 COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA B E T W E E N: BIOMEDICAL COMMERCIALIZATION CANADA INC., -and- HEALTH MEDIA NETWORK INC., AND BETWEEN: plaintiff, defendant. HEALTH MEDIA NETWORK INC., (plaintiff by counterclaim applicant, -and- BIOMEDICAL COMMERCIALIZATION CANADA INC., NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF CANADA and IAN SMITH, (defendants by counterclaim respondents. Counsel: Gene Zazelenchuk for Health Media Network Inc., defendant (plaintiff by counterclaim, applicant Dhara Drew for National Research Council of Canada and Ian Smith, (defendants by counterclaim respondents Sharyne Hamm for Biomedical Commercialization Canada Inc., plaintiff (defendant by counterclaim, on watching brief JUDGMENT DELIVERED: NOVEMBER 29, 2018
2 GREENBERG J. [1] This is a motion by Health Media Network Inc. ( HMN to strike the statement of defence of the defendants by counterclaim, National Research Council and Ian Smith, for failing to disclose relevant documents in a timely way. BACKGROUND [2] The original claim in this action was a simple claim for breach of contract. The plaintiff, Biomedical Commercialization Canada Inc. ( BCC, is a not-for-profit corporation created to promote small businesses in the science and technology industry through an "incubation program" which provides mentoring and support services. HMN is in the business of supplying medical offices with television screens that provide health information to patients. In March 2007, BCC and HMN entered into a contract whereby BCC was to provide mentorship, office space and equipment to HMN for a monthly fee. The contract was terminated by BCC in August 2008 and, in October 2010, BCC filed a statement of claim alleging that HMN owed it for services it had provided. [3] HMN filed a defence and counterclaim for damages, alleging that BCC did not provide the services contracted for and that BCC terminated the contract in bad faith. HMN added the National Research Council and Ian Smith (hereinafter collectively NRC, who was the Director General of the National Research Council at the relevant times, as defendants by counterclaim. [4] The National Research Council was a founding member of BCC and continues to be a key funder of BCC. Ian Smith was a director of BCC from its inception until HMN says that Ian Smith was involved in soliciting it as a client of BCC and argues that
3 the National Research Council was a party to the contract and is liable for breach of contract. In addition to the breach of contract claim, the counterclaim raises a number of other causes of action against the defendants by counterclaim, including conspiracy, negligent misrepresentation, intentional interference with contractual relations, defamation and misfeasance. [5] HMN s statement of defence and counterclaim was filed on November 29, 2010, and amended on October 25, NRC filed its statement of defence on November 17, Ian Smith was initially the liaison person who instructed the Department of Justice on this lawsuit and was responsible for locating documents relevant to the lawsuit. When Ian Smith left the National Research Council in 2013, that task was taken over by Vivian Sullivan, the director of the Council s Industrial Research Assistance Program. [6] HMN served its affidavit of documents on NRC in December NRC provided its first list 1 of 1,134 documents to HMN in July 2015, after HMN filed a motion for an order to compel production. Shortly before the examinations for discovery were held, in March 2016, NRC provided HMN with a supplemental list of documents. A second supplemental list of documents was provided in February 2017, along with answers to undertakings from the examinations for discovery. A third supplemental list was provided in November 2017 and a fourth list in March The supplemental lists disclosed 1,340 documents that were not disclosed in the initial list. 1 Under the Crown Liability and Proceedings (Provincial Court Regulations, SOR/91-604, s. 8, federal Crown agencies are allowed to serve a list of documents rather than an affidavit of documents.
4 [7] In argument, counsel for HMN said he took no issue with the timeliness of the first supplemental list of seven documents that was provided shortly before the discovery. He acknowledged that it is not uncommon for a party to locate relevant documents after the initial disclosure. And I note that the Rules specifically allow for supplementary affidavits of documents (Queen s Bench Rule What is of concern, HMN argued, is the large volume of documents that were not disclosed until long after the examinations for discovery - especially when undertakings were made at the examinations that should have triggered a search for these documents. I address the explanation for the delayed disclosure below. [8] Perhaps most notable about NRC s documentary disclosure is their delay in disclosing 17 documents that were attached to the affidavit of Ian Smith, which was filed in support of NRC s motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the action against them. (That motion has not yet been heard. Those are documents which the NRC obviously considers to be highly relevant since they are relying on them to seek dismissal of the claim. Yet only two were disclosed before the examination for discovery. Ten of the documents were not disclosed until November 2017, after the NRC had made the decision to seek summary judgment. In cross-examination, Mr. Smith could offer no explanation for the late disclosure. [9] As I said, counsel for NRC admits that their disclosure was faulty. However, she says that there is a reasonable explanation for the delayed disclosure. As I explain below, in my view, NRC has not provided a reasonable explanation for the delay. However, I do not find support in the evidence for HMN s allegation that NRC destroyed
5 relevant documents or that they intentionally withheld documents. In fact, in cross-examination, Ron Grouchy, HMN s operating mind, admits that he has no such evidence and that this allegation was based on innuendo. THE LAW [10] Rule of the Queen s Bench Rules gives the court authority to make such order as is just where a party fails to disclose a document in an affidavit of documents. In my view, this Rule allows the court to grant a remedial order not just where a party fails to disclose but also where a party delays disclosure and NRC did not dispute this. The issue is whether a remedial order or sanction is warranted in this case and, if so, what the nature of the order should be. [11] In Cobbe s Plumbing & Heating Ltd. v. Westfair Properties Ltd., 2004 MBQB 31 (CanLII, I had occasion to consider Rule which provides for sanctions where a party fails to attend an examination for discovery. I found the applicable principles to be: 25 Having regard to the above cases and the wording of the Court of Queen's Bench Rules, I would summarize the applicable principles in determining the appropriate sanction under Rule to be: 1. The application of Rule must be consistent with the general principles of interpretation set out in the Rules, in particular Rule 1.04 which mandates that the Rules be interpreted "to secure the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of every civil proceeding on its merits." 2. The overarching consideration for the court is to strike an appropriate balance between the right of the respondent to have its action determined on the merits and the right of the applicant to insist on compliance with the Rules and court orders with a view to facilitating the "flow" of the case. 3. Striking a pleading is an exceptional remedy which should be reserved for the most extreme cases of non-compliance with the Rules. A review of the cases suggests that the sanction would rarely be used for an isolated incident of noncompliance but is more likely where there has been a course of conduct which
6 indicates that a court order giving the respondent a "second chance" is unlikely to be complied with. 4. The court should look at the explanation of the respondent for noncompliance. That explanation may indicate not only the seriousness of the default (for example, whether it was deliberate as opposed to inadvertent but also whether the respondent is likely to comply with further court orders. 5. The court should look at the prejudice which the non-compliance has caused the applicant and whether that prejudice can be remedied in some other way, for example, through an award of costs. 6. There is some suggestion in the cases that the merit of the respondent's case is also a relevant factor. Although not relied on as a deciding factor in any case, there is a suggestion in some cases, where the court refused to strike a pleading, that the result might have been different if the respondent's case were completely without merit. [12] While these criteria were set out in a case involving a breach of the rules regarding examination for discovery, they are also relevant where the alleged breach relates to documentary discovery or where there are other abuses of the pre-trial process (see Manitoba Crop Insurance Corporation v. Wiebe et al., 2007 MBQB 158 (CanLII; Zelinski v. Jamz, 2004 MBQB 256 (QL, aff d on appeal 2005 MBCA 54 (QL, applic. for leave to appeal dismissed [2005] S.C.C.A. No. 282 (QL. ANALYSIS [13] NRC admits that their document disclosure was irregular and untimely. However, they say that the faulty disclosure was not deliberate and that the manner in which they disclosed documents was not unreasonable. They argue that they made their best efforts to disclose all relevant documents. [14] NRC says that the delay in disclosure was in part due to the change in 2013 in the liaison person responsible for locating relevant documents. While that change may explain some delay, Ian Smith left the National Research Council almost 18 months after
7 the close of pleadings, by which time one might assume most relevant documents would have been located. And it was another four years, after he left, for disclosure to be complete. It is difficult to understand how a change in personnel would create such significant delays. [15] NRC also explained that delayed disclosure was due to: 1 the evolution of the scope of relevancy; 2 the Government of Canada s centralization of information technology through Shared Services Canada; 3 the normal evolution of IT infrastructure; and 4 the Government of Canada s response to a cyber intrusion at the NRC in [16] I accept that sometimes, as litigation progresses, the nature of an action may evolve somewhat so that documents that might at first appear irrelevant become relevant. But NRC did not point to any specific changes in this case, such as an amendment to pleadings, that would spur further disclosure. And it is hard to imagine that the case would change so much that a further 1,340 documents became relevant. Nor does the evolution of the scope of relevancy explain why NRC did not disclose, until six years after their defence was filed, the documents on which they intend to rely to seek dismissal of HMN s claim. Those are documents which presumably NRC believes to be relevant to the core issues in this case. [17] NRC also did not explain why the fact that Shared Services Canada took over responsibility for NRC s internet technology infrastructure in June 2012 would delay access to documents for years.
8 [18] NRC claims that the evolution of their information technology infrastructure has made older s inaccessible. But, again, that does not explain why it took years for NRC to disclose s that were accessible. [19] This brings me to the cyber intrusion which NRC claims made documents inaccessible. There is no dispute that China hacked into the National Research Council s computer systems in July The uncontradicted evidence led by HMN was that this attack was voyeuristic and would not have destroyed documents. However, there was a period of time, while the Government addressed security issues, when documents could not be accessed. NRC relies on this to explain the delayed disclosure. But, in cross-examination, Vivian Sullivan acknowledged that access to the documents was restored in June Yet a final supplemental list of documents was not disclosed until November In fact, in February 2017, when Ms. Sullivan provided her response to undertakings from her examination for discovery, she continued to maintain that documents were inaccessible due to the cyber intrusion. It is clear from her cross-examination that Ms. Sullivan simply made no effort to locate and retrieve documents even though she knew that there was no longer any obstacle to her doing so. [20] While I do not believe that NRC intentionally withheld documents, their inattention to their obligation to disclose in this case was extreme. [21] What is also concerning about NRC s attitude towards their disclosure obligations is their explanation at the hearing of this motion. For the first time, they raised an issue of national security. There was no evidence to support this claim, simply counsel s assertion that she was told by her client that, as the response to the cyber intrusion was
9 a matter of national security, they could not provide any evidence about it. It is not clear to me why that evidence would be relevant to this motion in any event. How the Government responded to the cyber intrusion would not explain why it took the NRC over two years after access to documents was restored to disclose them to HMN. Raising the national security flag seemed like a last-ditch effort to justify NRC s indifference to their disclosure obligation and undermines the claim that they took reasonable steps. [22] I am satisfied that NRC did not meet their disclosure obligation in this case. While NRC says that they have now disclosed a list of all relevant documents in their possession, the disclosure was not made in a timely way. It is not just a failure to disclose that impacts on the trial process. Delayed disclosure also affects the efficiency and expense of the litigation process. The Queen s Bench Rules stipulate that affidavits of documents are to be exchanged within 10 days of the close of pleadings (Rule 30.03(1. This requirement is modified somewhat by the Crown Liability and Proceedings (Provincial Court Regulations, SOR/91-604, s. 8, which allows federal Crown agencies 60 days for documentary disclosure. While the strict requirement of these rules are often not complied with, counsel should be able to assume when they proceed to examination for discovery that the opposing party has made a diligent search and has disclosed all relevant documents. [23] In oral argument, counsel for HMN noted that his client would not have brought this motion if the disclosure, though late, had been provided before the examinations for discovery. But, he argues that the disclosure in this case was so flawed that NRC s statement of defence should be struck.
10 [24] There is no question that HMN has suffered prejudice by the late disclosure. They had access to less than half of NRC s documents when examinations for discovery were conducted. NRC argues that any prejudice can be met by allowing HMN to re-open discovery. But, the volume of new documents disclosed will likely mean that the examinations that were conducted are of little use. [25] NRC s delayed disclosure has affected the progress of this action and I do not find their explanation for the delay to be reasonable. While the actions of the NRC are deserving of sanction, I do not consider them to be so egregious as to merit the striking of their defence. The prejudice caused to HMN can be remedied by an award of costs. The merits of the counterclaim and defence are not clear in this case and NRC should not be precluded from presenting a defence. The appropriate balance between the rights of these parties can be struck by compensating HMN for any loss occasioned by NRC s late disclosure. [26] NRC argues that any costs award should be nominal. But a nominal costs award would not remedy the prejudice. It would not reimburse HMN for the costs of wasted discoveries or the expense of this motion. Nor would a nominal costs award message the court s disapproval of the delay. [27] The appropriate remedy in this case is to require NRC to pay the throwaway costs attributable to the delayed disclosure. Those costs would be the solicitor and client costs that HMN incurred to conduct discoveries that must be re-opened as well as the solicitor and client costs related to this motion. Those costs are to be paid forthwith. If there is a dispute regarding the bill of costs, the parties can return before me.
11 [28] In its notice of motion, HMN sought, as an alternative to an order striking NRC s defence, an order that HMN be allowed to amend its counterclaim to add allegations of spoliation. HMN did not provide a draft amended counterclaim or give any specifics about the intended amendments other than the request in its motion to amend its pleadings to allege that the NRC intentionally destroyed, or withheld, substantial documents relevant to the issues at bar. I am not prepared to allow the amendment for the following reasons. First, there is no evidence of a deliberate intent to withhold documents and no evidence that documents were destroyed in this case and, even if there was, it would not give rise to a separate cause of action. Second, to the extent that the documents were withheld, my decision today is intended to compensate HMN for any prejudice it has suffered as a result. Third, if evidence regarding the delayed disclosure is relevant to an issue at trial (such as credibility, it would be open to the trial judge to allow the evidence even without amending the pleadings. The delayed disclosure is not a material fact that must be pleaded in order to be relied upon and, in any event, the NRC has been put on notice that this may be an issue at trial (Peguis First Nation et al v. Canada (Attorney General, 2014 MBQB 98 (CanLII, para. 46. J.
COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA
Date: 20181121 Docket: CI 16-01-04438 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: Shirritt-Beaumont v. Frontier School Division Cited as: 2018 MBQB 177 COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA BETWEEN: ) APPEARANCES: ) RAYMOND
More informationCOURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA
Date: 20180914 Docket: CI 13-01-85087 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: Paterson et al. v. Walker et al. Cited as: 2018 MBQB 150 COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA B E T W E E N: SHARRON PATERSON AND ) RUSSELL
More informationCOURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF MANITOBA
Origin: Appeal from a decision of the Master of the Court of Queen's Bench, dated June 5, 2013 Date: 20131213 Docket: CI 13-01-81367 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: Jewish Community Campus of Winnipeg Inc.
More informationIntroductory Guide to Civil Litigation in Ontario
Introductory Guide to Civil Litigation in Ontario Table of Contents INTRODUCTION This guide contains an overview of the Canadian legal system and court structure as well as key procedural and substantive
More informationBy Bottom Line Research. Introduction
The Hammer of Civil Contempt: Case Comments on AMEC Foster Wheeler Americas Ltd. v. Attila Dogan Construction and Installation Co., 2016 ABQB 305 and 336239 Alberta Ltd. (c.o.b. Dave s Diesel Repair) v.
More informationCOURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA
Date: 20180705 Docket: CI 14-01-87274 CI 17-01-10191 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: Outland Camps Inc. v. M&L General Contracting Ltd. et al. Cited as: 2018 MBQB 112 COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA BETWEEN:
More informationTHE LAW SOCIETY CONVEYANCING ARBITRATION RULES
THE LAW SOCIETY CONVEYANCING ARBITRATION RULES (For disputes arising under the Contract for Sale of Land 2005 Edition) Preamble The Council of the Law Society of New South Wales resolved at a meeting on
More informationOFFICE OF THE ETHICS COMMISSIONER PROVINCE OF ALBERTA. Report of an Investigation under the Lobbyists Act. Re: Mr. Joseph Lougheed
OFFICE OF THE ETHICS COMMISSIONER PROVINCE OF ALBERTA Report of an Investigation under the Lobbyists Act Re: Mr. Joseph Lougheed May 6, 2013 May 6, 2013 Hon. Gene Zwozdesky Speaker Office of the Speaker
More informationCLASS PROCEEDINGS ACT
Province of Alberta Statutes of Alberta, Current as of December 17, 2014 Office Consolidation Published by Alberta Queen s Printer Alberta Queen s Printer 7 th Floor, Park Plaza 10611-98 Avenue Edmonton,
More informationINDEPENDENT FORENSIC AUDITS RE S By V.A. (Bud) MacDonald, Q.C. and Bottom Line Research. Overview
INDEPENDENT FORENSIC AUDITS RE EMAILS By V.A. (Bud) MacDonald, Q.C. and Bottom Line Research Overview On some files your opponent may be taking the position that there are no relevant emails in addition
More informationThe Class Actions Act
1 CLASS ACTIONS c. C-12.01 The Class Actions Act being Chapter C-12.01 of the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 2001 (effective January 1, 2002) as amended by the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 2007, c.21; and 2015,
More informationCOURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA
Date: 20180405 Docket: CR 15-01-35037 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: R. v. Stuart Cited as: 2018 MBQB 54 COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA B E T W E E N: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, ) Counsel: ) ) for the Crown
More informationDefamation and Social Media An Update
Defamation and Social Media An Update Presented by: Gavin Tighe Outline Overview The Legal Framework of Defamation in Canada Recent Developments Recent Jurisprudence and Amendments to the Legislative Framework
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. versus Civil Action 4:17 cv 02946
Case 4:17-cv-02946 Document 3 Filed in TXSD on 10/03/17 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION United States District Court Southern District of Texas
More informationPRACTICE DIRECTIVE I Preliminary Inquiry. Amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada regarding Preliminary Inquiries came into force on June 1, 2004.
PRACTICE DIRECTIVE I Preliminary Inquiry Amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada regarding Preliminary Inquiries came into force on June 1, 2004. Statutory Provisions: Criminal Code - Part XVIII 1. No
More informationThe SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE is the intentional, reckless, or negligent withholding, hiding, altering, fabricating, or destroying of evidence relevant
What is it? The SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE is the intentional, reckless, or negligent withholding, hiding, altering, fabricating, or destroying of evidence relevant to a legal proceeding. When Spoliation has
More informationRecord Retention Program Overview
Business/Employee Record Retention and Production: Strategies for Effective and Efficient Record Retention Business & Commercial Litigation Seminar Peoria, Illinois January 17, 2013 Presented by: Brad
More informationMANAGED PRINT SERVICES
www.trikon.com.au MANAGED PRINT SERVICES TRIKON PTY LTD info@trikon.com.au Ph 1300 880 687 2A, 6 Boundary Road, Northmead, NSW 2152 V-6630663:1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. About this Agreement... 3 2. Agreement
More informationThe Civil Action Part 1 of a 4 part series
The Civil Action Part 1 of a 4 part series The American civil judicial system is slow, and imperfect, but many times a victim s only recourse in attempting to me made whole after suffering an injury. This
More informationTHE ALBERTA GAZETTE, PART II, SEPTEMBER 15, Alberta Regulation 163/99. Apprenticeship and Industry Training Act
Alberta Regulation 163/99 Apprenticeship and Industry Training Act MILLWRIGHT TRADE AMENDMENT REGULATION Filed: August 16, 1999 Made by the Alberta Apprenticeship and Industry Training Board pursuant to
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Doucette v. Nova Scotia, 2016 NSSC 78
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Doucette v. Nova Scotia, 2016 NSSC 78 Date: 2016-03-24 Docket: Hfx No. 412065 Registry: Halifax Between: Laura Doucette Plaintiff v. Her Majesty in right of the Province
More informationDISPUTE RESOLUTION RULES
DISPUTE RESOLUTION RULES First Issued: March 1998 Amended: November 1999 Amended: July 2000 Amended: September 2001 Amended: September 2003 Amended: October 2004 Amended: May 2005 Amended: September 2005
More informationChapter 6. Disparagement of Property 8/3/2017. Business Torts and Online Crimes and Torts. Slander of Title Slander of Quality (Trade Libel) Defenses
Chapter 6 Business Torts and Online Crimes and Torts Disparagement of Property Slander of Title Slander of Quality (Trade Libel) Defenses Disparagement of Property Disparagement of property occurs when
More informationARBITRATION RULES. Arbitration Rules Archive. 1. Agreement of Parties
ARBITRATION RULES 1. Agreement of Parties The parties shall be deemed to have made these rules a part of their arbitration agreement whenever they have provided for arbitration by ADR Services, Inc. (hereinafter
More informationRESNICK v. BAKERNO. 13-P-234.
RESNICK v. BAKERNO. 13-P-234. MARC RESNICK, vs. JEFFREY S. BAKER, P.C. Appeals Court of Massachusetts. October 8, 2014. By the Court (Cypher, Graham & Carhart, JJ.). MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE
More informationCOMMENTARY. The New Texas Two-Step: Texas Supreme Court Articulates Evidence Spoliation Framework. Case Background
August 2014 COMMENTARY The New Texas Two-Step: Texas Supreme Court Articulates Evidence Spoliation Framework Spoliation of evidence has, for some time, remained an important topic relating to the discovery
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA PLAINTIFF(S), Plaintiff(s), Case No. RG CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER RE: DESIGNATED DEFENSE COUNSEL DEFENDANTS, et al., ASSIGNED FOR ALL PRE-TRIAL PURPOSES TO: DEPARTMENT
More informationCase 4:16-cv Document 80 Filed in TXSD on 08/30/18 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION
Case 4:16-cv-03577 Document 80 Filed in TXSD on 08/30/18 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED
More informationNFA Arbitration: Resolving Customer Disputes
NFA Arbitration: Resolving Customer Disputes Contents Why arbitration? 2 What does it cost to arbitrate? 4 What is NFA Arbitration? 6 Glossary of terms 17 National Futures Association (NFA) is a self-regulatory
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. ) ) Plaintiffs ) ) ) Defendant ) ) DECISION ON MOTION:
CITATION: Rush v. Via Rail Canada Inc., 2017 ONSC 2243 COURT FILE NO.: CV-14-507160 DATE: 20170518 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: Yael Rush and Thomas Rush Plaintiffs and Via Rail Canada Inc.
More informationCivil Procedure Act 2010
Examinable excerpts of Civil Procedure Act 2010 as at 2 October 2018 1 Purposes CHAPTER 1 PRELIMINARY (1) The main purposes of this Act are (a) to reform and modernise the laws, practice, procedure and
More information/...1 PRIVATE ARBITRATION KIT
1007453/...1 PRIVATE ARBITRATION KIT Introduction This document contains Guidelines, Rules and a Model Agreement in respect of private arbitrations. It is designed to assist practitioners when referring
More informationCOURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF MANITOBA
Date: 20180831 Docket: CR 14-15-00636 (Thompson Centre) Indexed as: R. v. Clemons Cited as: 2018 MBQB 144 COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF MANITOBA IN THE MATTER OF: AND IN THE MATTER OF: The Criminal Code of
More informationJeulin v P.C. Richard & Son, LLC 2018 NY Slip Op 32479(U) October 3, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2016 Judge: Adam
Jeulin v P.C. Richard & Son, LLC 2018 NY Slip Op 32479(U) October 3, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 157405/2016 Judge: Adam Silvera Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/27/ :11 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/27/2017
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X ALVIN DWORMAN, individually, and derivatively on behalf of CAPITAL
More informationTHE CHANCERY BAR ASSOCIATION S CONDITIONAL FEE CONDITIONS The following expressions used in these Conditions have the following
THE CHANCERY BAR ASSOCIATION S CONDITIONAL FEE CONDITIONS 2010 PART 1 1. The following expressions used in these Conditions have the following meanings: the Action the action or proposed action referred
More informationQUICKPOLE.CA TERMS OF SERVICE. Last Modified On: July 12 th, 2018
1. PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS: QUICKPOLE.CA TERMS OF SERVICE Last Modified On: July 12 th, 2018 1.1 Introduction. Welcome to our website's Terms and Conditions ("Agreement"). The provisions of this Agreement
More informationCOURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA
Date: 20180919 Docket: CI 18-01-15026 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: 6165347 Manitoba Inc. et al. v. The City of Winnipeg et al. Cited as: 2018 MBQB 153 B E T W E E N: COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA
More informationOBJECTION YOUR HONOUR!
OBJECTION YOUR HONOUR! ROBERT S. HARRISON JENNIFER McALEER FASKEN MARTINEAU DuMOULIN LLP THE BASICS What is an Objection? By definition an objection is an interruption. It should only be made when it is
More informationOrder COLLEGE OF PHARMACISTS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Order 02-03 COLLEGE OF PHARMACISTS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA David Loukidelis, Information and Privacy Commissioner January 24, 2002 Quicklaw Cite: [2002] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 3 Document URL: http://www.oipcbc.org/orders/order02-03.pdf
More informationIngles v. The Corporation of the City of Toronto Decision of the Supreme Court of Canada dated March 2, 2000
Ingles v. The Corporation of the City of Toronto Decision of the Supreme Court of Canada dated March 2, 2000 (City Council at its regular meeting held on October 3, 4 and 5, 2000, and its Special Meetings
More informationJSE DATA AGREEMENT (JDA) GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
JSE DATA AGREEMENT (JDA) GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS Version 1.0 JSE Limited Reg No: 2005/022939/06 Member of the World Federation of Exchanges JSE Limited I 2014 Page 1 of 31 CONTENTS Clause Page 1.
More informationR in a Nutshell by Mark Meltzer and John W. Rogers
R-17-0010 in a Nutshell by Mark Meltzer and John W. Rogers R-17-0010 was a rule petition filed by the Supreme Court s Committee on Civil Justice Reform in January 2017. The Supreme Court s Order in R-17-0010,
More informationPROSECUTING CASES BEFORE PROFESSIONAL BODIES DARCIA G. SCHIRR, Q.C. Presentation October 11 and 12, 2011
PROSECUTING CASES BEFORE PROFESSIONAL BODIES DARCIA G. SCHIRR, Q.C. Presentation October 11 and 12, 2011 INTRODUCTION Prosecuting cases before professional regulatory bodies can be challenging for all
More information107 ADOPTED RESOLUTION
ADOPTED RESOLUTION 1 2 3 RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association reaffirms the black letter of the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions as adopted February, 1986, and amended February 1992,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Walter Energy Canada Holdings, Inc. (Re), 2018 BCSC 1135 Date: 20180709 Docket: S1510120 Registry: Vancouver In the Matter of the Companies Creditors
More informationContract and Tort Law for Engineers
Contract and Tort Law for Engineers Christian S. Tacit Tel: 613-599-5345 Email: ctacit@tacitlaw.com Canadian Systems of Law There are two systems of law that operate in Canada Common Law and Civil Law
More informationGuide: An Introduction to Litigation
Guide: An Introduction to Litigation Matthew Purcell, Head of Dispute Resolution Saunders Law Solicitors The aim of this guide This guide is designed to provide an outline of how to resolve a commercial
More informationNCTA Disciplinary Procedure
NCTA Disciplinary Procedure The Nebraska College of Technical Agriculture (NCTA) Disciplinary Procedure is adapted for NCTA from Article IV: Student Code of Conduct Disciplinary Procedures of the UNL Student
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Dalhousie University v. Cogeneration and Energy Management Engineering Inc., 2017 NSSC 303
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Dalhousie University v. Cogeneration and Energy Management Engineering Inc., 2017 NSSC 303 Date: 20171128 Docket: Hfx No. 458586 Registry: Halifax Between: Dalhousie
More informationCONDITIONS OF APPOINTMENT
CONDITIONS OF APPOINTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPOINTMENT 1 The Landscape Consultant s Authority and Obligations Duty of Care 1.1 The Landscape Consultant has exercised and shall continue to exercise reasonable
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. v. Case No. 5:00-CV Defendant/Counterclaimant.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION The Regents of the UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, The Board of Trustees of MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, and VETGEN, L.L.C., Plaintiffs,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Eyears v Zufic [2016] QCA 40 PARTIES: MARINA EYEARS (applicant) v PETER ZUFIC as trustee for the PETER AND TANYA ZUFIC FAMILY TRUST trading as CLIENTCARE SOLICITORS
More informationCOURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF ALBERTA PRESTIGIOUS PROPERTIES INC.
Clerk's stamp: COURT FILE NUMBER: 1603 04928 COURT: JUDICIAL CENTRE: PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANTS: DOCUMENT: COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF ALBERTA EDMONTON PRESTIGIOUS PROPERTIES INC. COLD LAKE ESTATES INC., NORTHERN
More informationAN OVERVIEW OF EXTRAORDINARY REMEDIES
EXTRAORDINARY REMEDIES IN CIVIL LITIGATION 2 EXTRAORDINARY REMEDIES Extraordinary remedies available in civil proceedings include: Prohibitive, Mandatory and Preventative Injunctions Preservation of and
More informationHEALTH CARE LIABILITY UPDATE, 2014
HEALTH CARE LIABILITY UPDATE, 2014 PAULA SWEENEY Slack & Davis 2911 Turtle Creek Boulevard Suite 1400 Dallas Texas 75219 (214) 528-8686 psweeney@slackdavis.com State Bar of Texas ADVANCED MEDICAL TORTS
More informationCOURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA
Date: 20180612 Docket: CI 16-01-03007 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: Sekhon v. Minister of Education and Training Cited as: 2018 MBQB 99 COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA B E T W E E N: NARINDER KAUR SEKHON,
More informationIN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS. ooooo ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS ooooo Rex Bagley, v. Plaintiff and Appellant, KSM Guitars, Inc.; KSM Manufacturing, Inc.; and Kevin S. Moore, Defendants and Appellees. MEMORANDUM DECISION Case No. 20101001
More informationDefendant. SUMMARY ORDER. Plaintiff PPC Broadband, Inc., d/b/a PPC commenced this action
Case 5:11-cv-00761-GLS-DEP Document 228 Filed 05/20/15 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PPC BROADBAND, INC., d/b/a PPC, v. Plaintiff, 5:11-cv-761 (GLS/DEP) CORNING
More informationA BILL FOR A LAW FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF CIVIL JUSTICE IN EKITI STATE EKITI STATE OF NIGERIA
A BILL FOR A LAW FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF CIVIL JUSTICE IN EKITI STATE EKITI STATE OF NIGERIA 1 EKITI STATE OF NIGERIA ADMINISTRATION OF CIVIL JUSTICE BILL, 2018 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS 1. Objectives
More informationLi Ping Xie v Jang 2012 NY Slip Op 33871(U) February 28, 2012 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2008E Judge: Paul G.
Li Ping Xie v Jang 2012 NY Slip Op 33871(U) February 28, 2012 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 117222/2008E Judge: Paul G. Feinman Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
More informationCHAPTER 36. MEDICAID FRAUD PREVENTION SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS
TEXAS HUMAN RESOURCES CODE CHAPTER 36. MEDICAID FRAUD PREVENTION SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS 36.001. Definitions In this chapter: (1) "Claim" means a written or electronically submitted request or
More informationArbitration Act CHAPTER Part I. Arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement. Introductory
Arbitration Act 1996 1996 CHAPTER 23 1 Part I Arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement Introductory 1. General principles. 2. Scope of application of provisions. 3. The seat of the arbitration.
More informationDraft. Cooperation Agreement
Draft Cooperation Agreement between TeleTrusT ev. hereinafter referred to as TeleTrusT and hereinafter referred to as... C:\Dokumente und Einstellungen\dafi\Lokale Einstellungen\Temporary Internet Files\OLK1E\BridgeCaVertrag_e.doc
More informationJAMS International Arbitration Rules & Procedures
JAMS International Arbitration Rules & Procedures Effective September 1, 2016 JAMS INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION RULES JAMS International and JAMS provide arbitration and mediation services from Resolution
More informationData Protection Act 1998
Data Protection Act 1998 1998 CHAPTER 29 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Part I Preliminary 1. Basic interpretative provisions. 2. Sensitive personal data. 3. The special purposes. 4. The data protection principles.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: The Law Society of British Columbia v. Boyer, 2016 BCSC 342 Date: 20160210 Docket: S1510783 Registry: Vancouver Between: The Law Society of British Columbia
More informationUNIT 15 CIVIL LITIGATION SUGGESTED ANSWERS - JANUARY 2012
Note to Candidates and Tutors: UNIT 15 CIVIL LITIGATION SUGGESTED ANSWERS - JANUARY 2012 The purpose of the suggested answers is to provide students and tutors with guidance as to the key points students
More informationComplex Strategies, Inc. v AA Ultrasound, Inc NY Slip Op 32723(U) October 11, 2016 Supreme Court, Nassau County Docket Number: Judge:
Complex Strategies, Inc. v AA Ultrasound, Inc. 2016 NY Slip Op 32723(U) October 11, 2016 Supreme Court, Nassau County Docket Number: 605909-14 Judge: Timothy S. Driscoll Cases posted with a "30000" identifier,
More information- and - United Steelworkers, Local 5442, - and - BEFORE: W.D. Hamilton, Chairperson
Manitoba Labour Board Suite 500, 5 th Floor - 175 Hargrave Street Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3C 3R8 T 204 945-2089 F 204 945-1296 www.manitoba.ca/labour/labbrd DISMISSAL NO. 2056 IN THE MATTER OF: THE
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 2008 CA 000199 IMERGENT. INC., and STORESONLINE,
More informationPreservation, Spoliation, and Adverse Inferences a view from the Southern District of Texas
APRIL 19, 2010 Preservation, Spoliation, and Adverse Inferences a view from the Southern District of Texas By Jonathan Redgrave and Amanda Vaccaro In January, Judge Shira Scheindlin provided substantive
More informationNew Jersey False Claims Act
New Jersey False Claims Act (N.J. Stat. Ann. 2A:32C-1 to 18) i 2A:32C-1. Short title Sections 1 through 15 and sections 17 and 18 [C.2A:32C-1 through C.2A:32C-17] of this act shall be known and may be
More informationPROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
DATED 2006 (1) PROFIT THROUGH CHANGE LIMITED (2) - and - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT CONTENTS 1. DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION...1 2. COMMENCEMENT AND DURATION...2 3. PROVISION OF SERVICES...2 4.
More informationProcedural Rules Mining and Lands Commissioner
FR MENU Procedural Rules Mining and Lands Commissioner These rules apply to all proceedings before the Mining and Lands Commissioner that started on or after February 5, 2018. On this page Preamble Application
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA Plaintiff Case No. RG11 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER re: DESIGNATED DEFENSE COUNSEL, et al., ASSIGNED FOR ALL PRE-TRIAL PURPOSES TO: JUDGE JO-LYNNE Q. LEE DEPARTMENT
More informationEurex Liquidity Provider Agreement (LPA) v.1.1
Eurex Liquidity Provider Agreement (LPA) v.1.1 between Eurex Frankfurt AG Mergenthalerallee 61 65760 Eschborn Germany - hereinafter referred to as EFAG - and Eurex Clearing AG Mergenthalerallee 61 65760
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
Court File No. 842/12 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: 2145850 ONTARIO LIMITED, o/a Highland Bus Services, BARR BUS LINES LIMITED, CLARK BUS & MARINA LIMITED, HEALEY TRANSPORTATION LIMITED,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND. Between: Gabriel Elbaz, Sogelco International Inc. and Summerside Seafood Supreme Inc.
SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Citation: Summerside Seafood v. Gov PEI 2012 PESC 4 Date: January 30, 2012 Docket: S1-GS-20942 Registry: Charlottetown Between: Gabriel Elbaz, Sogelco International
More informationDOCUMENT PRODUCTION IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION - IS IT A BENEFICIAL EXERCISE?
DOCUMENT PRODUCTION IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION - IS IT A BENEFICIAL EXERCISE? Peter Schradieck Attorney-at-Law, Partner and Head of Dispute Resolution Plesner, Denmark 1 INTRODUCTION As a general rule,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Burnell v. Canada (Fisheries and Oceans), 2014 BCSC 258 Barry Jim Burnell Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as Represented by the
More informationB e f o r e: LORD JUSTICE FLOYD EUROPEAN HERITAGE LIMITED
Neutral Citation Number: [2014] EWCA Civ 238 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION B2/2012/0611 Royal Courts of Justice Strand,London WC2A
More informationCase 5:00-cv FB Document 26 Filed 07/11/2002 Page 1 of 6
Case 5:00-cv-01081-FB Document 26 Filed 07/11/2002 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION FILED EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO OPINION
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: Filing Date: March 14, 2013 Docket No. 33,280 IN THE MATTER OF GENE N. CHAVEZ, ESQUIRE AN ATTORNEY SUSPENDED FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW BEFORE
More informationSUMMARY OF CONTENTS SC-1.
SUMMARY OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 SUMMARY OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 Chapter 1. Preliminary Matters............................ 1-1 Chapter 2. Parties...................................... 2-1 Chapter 3. Service......................................
More informationSection 3. CSIS Accountability Structure
Section 3 CSIS Accountability Structure Section 3: CSIS Accountability Structure 41 CSIS Accountability Structure The Service is an agency of the Government of Canada and through the Solicitor General
More informationIn the United States Court of Federal Claims
In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 12-286C (Filed: April 14, 2016) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * NORTHROP GRUMMAN SYSTEMS CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff, Motion to Compel; Work Product
More informationHOSPIRA HEALTHCARE CORPORATION. and THE KENNEDY INSTITUTE OF RHEUMATOLOGY
Date: 20150417 Docket: T-396-13 Toronto, Ontario, April 17, 2015 PRESENT: Madam Prothonotary Martha Milczynski BETWEEN: HOSPIRA HEALTHCARE CORPORATION Plaintiff and THE KENNEDY INSTITUTE OF RHEUMATOLOGY
More informationInformation or instructions: Combined discovery requests, admissions, production of documents and interrogatories
Information or instructions: Combined discovery requests, admissions, production of documents and interrogatories 1. The practitioner may desire to combine Request for Admissions, Interrogatories and Request
More informationDAKOTA COUNTY PROPERTY RECORDS TECHNOLOGY AND INFORMATION SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT
DAKOTA COUNTY PROPERTY RECORDS TECHNOLOGY AND INFORMATION SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is between the COUNTY OF DAKOTA, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota ( COUNTY ), and (insert
More informationSeptember 1, 2015 Le 1 er septembre 2015 DISCLOSURE
OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL CABINET DU PROCUREUR GÉNÉRAL PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS OPERATIONAL MANUAL MANUEL DES OPÉRATIONS DE POURSUITES PUBLIQUES TYPE OF DOCUMENT TYPE DE DOCUMENT : Policy Politique CHAPTER
More informationPetroleum Products and Energy Act 13 of 1990 section 4A(2)(b)
MADE IN TERMS OF section 4A(2) Regulations for Arbitration Procedures under the Petroleum Products and Energy Act, 1990 Government Notice 93 of 2003 (GG 2970) came into force on date of publication: 29
More informationSTREAMLINED JAMS STREAMLINED ARBITRATION RULES & PROCEDURES
JAMS STREAMLINED ARBITRATION RULES & PROCEDURES Effective JULY 15, 2009 STREAMLINED JAMS STREAMLINED ARBITRATION RULES & PROCEDURES JAMS provides arbitration and mediation services from Resolution Centers
More informationFortress Real Developments Inc., Fortress Real Capital Inc., Jawad Rathore and Vince Petrozza, Plaintiffs ENDORSEMENT
CITATION: Fortress Real Developments Inc. v. Rabidoux, 2017 ONSC 167 COURT FILE NO.: CV-16-546813 DATE: 20170111 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: Fortress Real Developments Inc., Fortress Real Capital
More informationWASHINGTON COUNTY PROPERTY RECORDS TECHNOLOGY AND INFORMATION SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT
WASHINGTON COUNTY PROPERTY RECORDS TECHNOLOGY AND INFORMATION SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is between the COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota ( COUNTY ), and
More informationOctober Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery
OCTOBER 25, 2013 E-DISCOVERY UPDATE October Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery This update addresses the following recent developments and court decisions involving e-discovery issues:
More informationCUSTODIAL AGREEMENT. by and among CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE. as Seller, Servicer and Cash Manager. and
Execution Copy CUSTODIAL AGREEMENT by and among CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE as Seller, Servicer and Cash Manager and CIBC COVERED BOND (LEGISLATIVE) GUARANTOR LIMITED PARTNERSHIP as Guarantor and
More informationCUSTODIAL AGREEMENT. by and among THE TORONTO-DOMINION BANK. as Issuer, Seller, Servicer and Cash Manager. and
Execution Copy CUSTODIAL AGREEMENT by and among THE TORONTO-DOMINION BANK as Issuer, Seller, Servicer and Cash Manager and TD COVERED BOND (LEGISLATIVE) GUARANTOR LIMITED PARTNERSHIP as Guarantor and COMPUTERSHARE
More informationOrder F09-24 MINISTRY OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND SOLICITOR GENERAL. Jay Fedorak, Adjudicator. November 19, 2009
Order F09-24 MINISTRY OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND SOLICITOR GENERAL Jay Fedorak, Adjudicator November 19, 2009 Quicklaw Cite: [2009] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 30 Document URL: http://www.oipc.bc.ca/orders/2009/orderf09-24.pdf
More informationNew Mexico Medicaid False Claims Act
New Mexico Medicaid False Claims Act (N.M. Stat. Ann. 27-14-1 to 15) i 27-14-1. Short title This [act] [27-14-1 to 27-14-15 NMSA 1978] may be cited as the "Medicaid False Claims Act". 27-14-2. Purpose
More information