Court of Appeal

Judge:

The Honourable Justice Elizabeth Van den Eynden

Appeal Heard:

May 15, 2015, in Halifax, Nova Scotia

Subject:

Summary judgment on pleadings; objection to discovery questions; denial of natural justice; sufficiency of reasons; failure to rule;

Summary:

This is an appeal from an interlocutory decision.  The motions judge only struck part of the pleadings.  He determined the discovery questions objected to were relevant and ordered the witness to attend discovery and answer the questions.  On appeal the appellant seeks to reverse these unfavourable findings.  The motion to strike was to be determined first, following which the motions judge agreed to call upon counsel for further submissions before deciding the relevancy of the discovery questions.  Without explanation, the motions judge proceeded to decide the relevancy issue without providing counsel with the opportunity to make further submissions.

Issues:

(1)        Should leave to appeal be granted?

(2)        Did the motions judge err by failing to rule or provide reasons respecting the motion for summary judgment?

(3)         Did the motions judge err by disregarding or misapplying the law concerning the motion to strike?

(4)        Did the motions judge breach the rules of natural justice by making a decision and issuing an order on the motion to compel without first inviting further submissions?

(5)        Did the motions judge err by holding that the lines of questioning at discovery were relevant?

Result:

Leave to appeal granted.  Appeal dismissed with costs.