Supreme Court

Decision Information

Decision Content

                                          SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA

                      Citation:  Saturley v. CIBC World Markets Inc., 2011 NSSC 310

 

Date: 20110629

Docket:  Hfx No. 305635 and

Hfx No. 322441

Registry: Halifax

 

Between:                                          

Fredrick Thomas Saturley                                                                          Plaintiff

 

                                                                           and

 

CIBC World Markets Inc.                                                                       Defendant

 

Between:

 

Gayle Crooks, Archie Gillis, and Karen McGrath             Plaintiffs

 

                                                                           and

 

CIBC World Markets Inc./Marches Mondiaux CIBC Inc.

carrying on business as CIBC Wood Gundy                                         Defendant

 

 

LIBRARY HEADING

 

Judge:                        The Honourable Justice Gerald R. P. Moir

 

Heard:                       Hfx No. 305635 heard June 24, 2011 and Hfx No. 322441 by correspondence                                  

 

Subjects:                   Civil Procedure; Case Management Directions, including content of notice to class members, disclosure of "facts" from witness interviews, and redacting irrelevant text.

 

Summary:                 Parties moved for directions on numerous issues.

 

Issues:                        Including (1)  Should the statement of common issues be included in the notice to class members in the class action?  (2)  In the other action, must the defendant disclose what its counsel knows as a result of interviewing witnesses?  (3)  Is it appropriate to redact information merely because it is irrelevant?


Results:                     Among other issues, (1)  In this case, including the statement of common issues could mislead.  (2)  The principle that litigation privilege does not protect "facts" is restricted to material facts as opposed to evidence.  What counsel heard and observed when interviewing witnesses is privileged.  (3)  Followed Banks v. National Bank.  Irrelevancy is a sufficient reason to redact text unless there is good reason to disclose all the text, such as that the redaction would distort the meaning of the rest of the text.

 

 

THIS INFORMATION SHEET DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE COURT'S DECISION.  QUOTES MUST BE FROM THE DECISION, NOT THIS LIBRARY SHEET.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.