SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA
Citation: Milburn v. Growthworks Canadian Fund Ltd., 2013 NSSC 69
Date: 20130220
Docket: Syd No. 296202
Registry: Halifax
Between:
Douglas Milburn, Ian Campbell, John Campbell, Norm
Carmichael, Marilyn Gillis, Gerry Haberer, Michael
Milburn, Thomas Murphy, John Ritter, Armin Schabel,
Frances Smith, Herman Koza, Roy MacNeil, Allan
MacMillan, Michelle Milburn, Milburn Family Trust, A.
Riberio Holdings, Karin Allen, Pat Archer, Mortimer
Brown, Elizabeth Carmichael, Dan Chobotiuk, Sion
Jennings, Elizabeth Lynk, Eleanor Mack, Christopher
Milburn, Colin Noble, Malcolm Noble, Alex Riberio,
Kevin Schabel, Tom Schneider, Hanna Shaheen, Maja-Lisa
Thomson, Jon Woeller, Kausar Mian, Donald Archer and
Norton Campbell
Plaintiffs
v.
GrowthWorks Canadian Fund Ltd., Englefield House No.
4 Inc., Walsingham Fund, Richard Black, Alisha Hirsch,
Scott Pelton, Tom Saunders, John Gardner and Vince
Mifsud
Defendants
LIBRARY HEADING
Judge: The Honourable Justice Michael J. Wood
Heard: February 14, 2013 (in Chambers), in Halifax, Nova Scotia
Decision: February 20, 2013 (Orally)
Written Release
of Decision: February 27, 2013
Subject: Civil Procedure - Directions for Disclosure - CPR 15.07
Representative Proceedings - CPR 68.08
Summary: Individual plaintiffs made a motion to appoint a representative plaintiff under CPR 68.08. Primary purpose was to avoid having to produce individual affidavits disclosing documents. Alternatively, they sought directions to avoid individual affidavits by having a consolidated disclosure affidavit.
Issue: Should a representative plaintiff by appointed?
Should the plaintiffs by exempt from providing individual affidavits disclosing documents?
Result: In the circumstances, the Court was not prepared to appoint a representative under CPR 68.08. The motion was motivated by desire to avoid individual disclosure. The plaintiffs were not an appropriate representative group and there were issues with the adequacy of notice.
The plaintiffs had already disclosed documents in their possession and control. The burden of producing individual affidavits was not shown to be significant in the context of the allegations in this proceeding. Motion for directions dismissed.
THIS INFORMATION SHEET DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE COURT'S DECISION. QUOTES MUST BE FROM THE DECISION, NOT THIS LIBRARY SHEET.