Source: http://lawsdocbox.com/Legal_Issues/68902938-Supreme-court-of-nova-scotia-citation-jewell-v-i-flow-2017-nssc-54.html
Timestamp: 2018-09-26 05:01:00
Document Index: 246754953

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 8', 'art 8', 'ART 44', 'ART 44', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'ART 1', 'ART 1', 'EWCA ']

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Jewell v. I-Flow, 2017 NSSC 54 - PDF
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Jewell v. I-Flow, 2017 NSSC 54
Download "SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Jewell v. I-Flow, 2017 NSSC 54"
1 SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Jewell v. I-Flow, 2017 NSSC 54 Date: Docket: Tru No Registry: Truro Between: Anne L. Jewell and Thurman M. Jewell, Parents of Leia Bettina Jewell, on behalf of the Estate of Leia Bettina Jewell, and in their own right, pursuant to the Fatal Injuries Act, RSNS 1989, c 163 v. I-Flow, LLC, a body corporate, Pictou County Health Authority, a body corporate, and Dr. Maximillian Christian Lincoln Plaintiffs Defendants Judge: Heard: The Honourable Justice Gregory M. Warner February 16, 2017 in Halifax, Nova Scotia Oral Decision: February 16, 2017 Counsel: Adam Crane, counsel for the plaintiffs Peter Rogers Q.C. and Katie Archibald, counsel for I-Flow LLC Carman McCormick and Daniel MacKenzie, counsel for Pictou County Health Authority Jack Townsend, counsel for Dr. Lincoln
2 Page 2 By the Court: [1] You deserve something more thorough, but I am going to give you an inarticulate oral decision that will include the reasons for my decision. [2] This is an application by the plaintiff for an order compelling disclosure by the defendant of three categories of information outlined in paragraph 1(a), (b) and (c) of counsel s brief to the court on this motion. The requested disclosure relates to: complaints received by the defendant in relation to the On-Q Painbuster fixed flow pumps by I-Flow; complaints received by FDA and reported to I-Flow; and complaints received by Health Canada and reported to I-Flow, and I- Flow s files in respect of those complaints. [3] The motion is made on the basis of a report prepared by Dr. Gentles, in which he tested the particular pain pump involved in this action. He noted in Part 8 of his report, as well as Appendix 3 and Appendix 4, that there seemed to have been recurring problems with the fixed flow model of the On-Q pump like the one in the patient in this case. He refers to 12 particular FDA incidents - his summary of how they were dealt with, as well as the report and the response of I-Flow. [4] The inclusion of Part 8 in Dr. Gentles report meets the definition, at this stage of this proceeding, of justification for finding that the request of the plaintiff is likely to lead to relevant evidence on the issue of liability. [5] While the point made by counsel for I-Flow - that the real issue in this case is the condition of the flow pump used by the deceased, which pump was tested and found in order, is a valid point and it is an issue that the plaintiff must overcome when the ultimate liability decision is made in this case. Dr. Gentles report does not foreclose, but in fact opens the door, to the relevance of an apparent recurring problem with fixed flow models of the On-Q pump like the one used by the deceased. [6] The onus is on the plaintiff to show that the request for disclosure is relevant, and I am satisfied they have discharged it for the reasons that have been put by the court to counsel during their submissions. [7] Mr. Rogers suggests that the request for disclosure is overly broad; it is not proportional. He relies upon the evidence of Mr. Aurin. The onus is for the defendant in this case to satisfy the court of any disproportionality or over broadness of the request. [8] Paragraph 4 of Mr. Aurin s affidavit, stating that the defendant has manufactured in excess of 5 million pain pumps for world-wide distribution over an unknown period of time, provides the court with no sense of the scope of this disclosure request, which request is related only to fixed flow pumps. The affidavit of Mr. Aurin does not describe when the model of fixed flow rate pump came into use and manufacture by I-Flow, or whether it continues to be used. I have no data in front of me upon which I can temporally limit the request for relevant disclosure of the On-Q fixed flow rate pump.
3 Page 3 [9] Paragraph 5 of Mr. Aurin s affidavit says the fixed flow pumps include three primary pump models with an array of different fill volumes, catheters and flow rates for a total of approximately 50 fixed flow pump products. That is concerning because the affidavit of Ms. Archibald, sworn June 5, 2016, filed for the purpose of limiting what is relevant, presumably pumps having the same characteristics as the pump used on Ms. Jewell, describes at Tab A, a single fixed rate pump model. [10] So, somewhat on faith, I am prepared to accept that, at pages numbered 86 to 89 of Tab A of Ms. Archibald s affidavit, the court is being directed to the On-Q pump insert with fixed flow rate that is relevant, that covers the pain pump used by Ms. Jewel. On that representation, I am prepared to limit the request for disclosure 1(a), (b) and (c) to the On-Q pump insert with fixed flow rate referred to at pages 86 to 89 and to limit it as described on page 89 to the four combinations that include either labelled fill volumes of 270 millilitres and/or labelled flow rates of 5 millilitres per hour. This appears to include four combinations of pump and whatever accessories create a fill volume of 270 or a flow rate of 5 millilitres per hour. [11] Temporally, only because the plaintiff asked, I limit the timeline from January 1, 2005, and while my inclination is to extend it to the present, to limit it to December 31, [12] Obviously, if I had been provided information that showed that the model had changed at some point after March 1, 2011, I might have been inclined to temporally limit it to a shorter time frame. Absent any such evidence, I am not prepared to do so. The onus in this respect was on the defendant I-Flow. [13] Part of the analysis of the exercise of discretion by the court under CPR 4.12 was dealt with by the Court of Appeal in Laushway v Messervey, 2014 NSCA 7, at paragraph 86, where the court dealt with and categorized ten factors to be considered by a chambers or motion judge in accessing a request for disclosure. Both counsel have referred the court to this decision. It is in paragraph 32 of I-Flow s brief. [14] With regards to Item 1, connection: what is the nature of the claim and how do the issues and circumstances relate to the information sought to be produced? This claim is a claim for product liability in respect of an alleged defective pain pump. The request is for disclosure of complaints known to the defendant with respect to that type of pain pump. That may impact and, in my view, would likely lead to whether there are issues as described by Dr. Gentles with pain pumps of this model. [15] With regards to proximity, how close is the connection between the sought information and the matters in dispute? It may be that some of the complaints to I-Flow or to FDA or to Health Canada are not admissible, are hearsay or may not have relevance or weight for various reasons, but that is not going to be known until there is the disclosure of the complaints and I- Flow s own files with respect to their investigation of the complaints. [16] In terms of the third item, discoverability, only I-Flow, I am satisfied, can efficiently provide the requested disclosure.
4 Page 4 [17] Fourth, with regards to liability, as Mr. Crane submitted, it may be that the complaints are not reliable. He assumes that I-Flow s file would not be advanced (claimed) by I-Flow to be unreliable. [18] With regards to proportionality, I have tried to limit the request based upon the evidence before the court, advanced as an issue of proportionality by I-Flow, having already determined relevance. My decision is intended to meet that test based upon the evidence before the court. [19] Number six, alternative measures. I am not aware of any less intrusive means available to the applicant to obtain the sought-after information. [20] With regards to item seven, privacy. That was dealt with in a very general sense by the defendant in its brief. The court is not aware of any legislative scheme, none has been put before the court, that would restrict or limit the disclosure of information provided to I-Flow or to FDA or to Health Canada in respect of any other incident and what safeguards are available or are not available. For that reason, the court is unable to access any potential privacy issue at the time of the making of this Order, absent any representation or disclosure to the court as to what safeguards exist or are appropriate. [21] The court s general knowledge of safeguards for hospital records is not relevant to this analysis. It is safeguards of information in complaints made to a public regulatory body. I am unable to assess that one way or the other or give it weight, absent any submission or legislation or evidence dealing with the potential impact upon the personal privacy issues of third parties. [22] Number eight, balancing the privacy rights of individuals, public interest and the search for the truth. Obviously, subject to any public interest immunity or privilege issue, civil litigation is based primarily upon a search for the truth. The balancing in this particular matter is not in respect of relevance, it is the request for disclosure for information about third-parties and their experience with the pain pumps of the defendant that might or might not be relevant to the plaintiff s claim of a defective product. [23] Number nine, objectivity. It is not known in this case how the information requested by the plaintiff will be used. The information may assist the defendant. The plaintiff has represented to the court that it intends to have its own independent, expert analysis conducted. Presumably that will depend upon the results of the disclosure received from the defendant I-Flow. [24] Number ten deals with the issue of the terms and conditions that ought to be contained in the production order. I have identified conditions and terms which I believe are just, speedy and inexpensive in the context of this proceeding. [25] That is the decision of the court, I apologize if it is inarticulate. [Oral Submissions from counsel regarding costs]
5 Page 5 [26] The costs should not be tied to the outcome. It is a procedural motion that is not going to be affected by the ultimate winner or loser of the litigation if the matter, if common sense does not resolve it before hand. So, it will not be changed in any way. [27] The issue is the claim is for $2,000. The issue, quite candidly, was not that complicated. I order $1,500 costs to be paid irrespective of the result of the case by the defendant to the plaintiff. The other parties were watching so they are not benefiting. [Submissions, payable forthwith or not] [28] I wrote a decision in a corporate oppression case, Merks Poultry Farms v Wittenberg, 2010 NSSC 395, saying litigation that appears to be long-winded and may go on for some time, costs should be payable at the time and not long after unless payable forthwith would interfere with the ability to get to trial. In other words, prevent a party from being able to carry on the litigation. [29] I followed that practice in all of the decisions I have had since, including several of the Knowledge House ones, involving serious litigation, so I agree it will be payable forthwith. [30] That is the practice, and I think it is changing in our court more and more. It did not use to be that way but, in long litigation, it should be that way. Warner, J.
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Fana (DCD) Holdings Inc. v. Dartmouth Cove Developments Inc., 2017 NSSC 157
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Fana (DCD) Holdings Inc. v. Dartmouth Cove Developments Inc., 2017 NSSC 157 Between: Date: 2017-06-07 Docket: Hfx No. 461513 Registry: Halifax Fana (DCD) Holdings
NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: R. v. Spencer, 2018 NSCA 3. v. Her Majesty the Queen
NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: R. v. Spencer, 2018 NSCA 3 Date: 20180109 Docket: CAC 470957 Registry: Halifax Between: Rita Mary Spencer v. Her Majesty the Queen Applicant Respondent Judge: Motion
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Bresson v.nova Scotia (Community Services), 2016 NSSC 64. v. Nova Scotia (Department of Community Service)
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Bresson v.nova Scotia (Community Services), 2016 NSSC 64 Date: 20160118 Docket: SYD No. 443281 Registry: Sydney Between: Jainey Lee Bresson v. Nova Scotia (Department
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Banfield v. RKO Steel Ltd., 2017 NSSC 232. Thomas Banfield D E C I S I O N
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Banfield v. RKO Steel Ltd., 2017 NSSC 232 Date: 2017-09-07 Docket: Hfx No. 415476 Registry: Halifax Between: Thomas Banfield v. Plaintiff RKO Steel Limited, a body
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Drescher v. Drescher Estate, 2007 NSSC 352. Docket: SH. No
Page 1 of 7 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Drescher v. Drescher Estate, 2007 NSSC 352 Docket: SH. No. 278018 Date: 20071121 Registry: Halifax Between: Gisela Drescher, by her attorney Alex
NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Nova Scotia Association of Health Organizations Long Term Disability Plan Trust Fund v. Amirault, 2017 NSCA 50
NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Nova Scotia Association of Health Organizations Long Term Disability Plan Trust Fund v. Amirault, 2017 NSCA 50 Date: 20170613 Docket: CA 460158 Registry: Halifax Between:
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Quadrangle Holdings Ltd. v. Coady Estate, 2016 NSSC 106
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Quadrangle Holdings Ltd. v. Coady Estate, 2016 NSSC 106 Date: 2016-04-18 Docket: Hfx No. 291455 Registry: Halifax Between: Quadrangle Holdings Ltd. v. Plaintiff v.
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Maxwell Properties Ltd. v. Mosaik Property Management Ltd., 2017 NSSC 81
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Maxwell Properties Ltd. v. Mosaik Property Management Ltd., 2017 NSSC 81 Date: 20170316 Docket: Hfx No. 458069 Registry: Halifax Between: Maxwell Properties Limited
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Hannem v. Stilet, 2015 NSSC 341
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Hannem v. Stilet, 2015 NSSC 341 Date: 20151126 Docket: Hfx No. 429723 Registry: Halifax Between: Mark Wesley Hannem Plaintiff v. Daniel Marvin Stilet, Shannon Lynne
YOUTH JUSTICE COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. M.A.C., 2018 NSPC 12. v. M.A.C.
YOUTH JUSTICE COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. M.A.C., 2018 NSPC 12 Date: 2018-05-02 Docket: 8221262, 8221263 Registry: Pictou Between: Her Majesty the Queen v. M.A.C. Restriction on Publication: No
WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL PRACTICE MANUAL
WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL PRACTICE MANUAL (revised July 2016) 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.00 The Workers Compensation Appeals Tribunal 1.10 Introduction 1.11 Definitions 1.20 Role of the Tribunal
SUPREME 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
Order 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
NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Frank George s Island Investments Ltd. v. Shannon, 2016 NSCA 24
Introductory 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
NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Nova Scotia (Attorney General) v. MacLean, 2016 NSCA 69
Between: NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Nova Scotia (Attorney General) v. MacLean, 2016 NSCA 69 Date: 20160919 Docket: CA No. 454541 Registry: Halifax The Attorney General of Nova Scotia representing
NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER
March 20, 2009 A-2009-004 NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER REPORT A-2009-004 Eastern Regional Integrated Health Authority Summary: The Applicant applied under
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Colpitts, 2017 NSSC 22. Robert Blois Colpitts. Her Majesty the Queen MID-TRIAL RULING TRIAL MANAGEMENT
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Colpitts, 2017 NSSC 22 Date: 20170124 Docket: CRH 346068 Registry: Halifax Between: Robert Blois Colpitts v. Her Majesty the Queen MID-TRIAL RULING TRIAL MANAGEMENT
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Smith, 2017 NSSC 122. v. Tyrico Thomas Smith
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Smith, 2017 NSSC 122 Date: 20170509 Docket: Cr. No. 449182 Registry: Halifax Between: Her Majesty the Queen v. Tyrico Thomas Smith Judge: Heard: Sentencing
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA FAMILY DIVISION Citation: Nova Scotia (Maintenance Enforcement) v. Hill, 2017 NSSC 112
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA FAMILY DIVISION Citation: Nova Scotia (Maintenance Enforcement) v. Hill, 2017 NSSC 112 Date: 2017-03-13 Docket: SFSNMEA No. 098947 Registry: Sydney Between: Director Maintenance
CHAPTER 6 Applications for Administration without Will Annexed I. Introduction [ 6.1] II. General [ 6.2] III. Applications for Administration without Will Annexed [ 6.3] A. Persons Entitled to Apply [
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Moore v. Catholic Episcopal Corporation, 2015 NSSC 308
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Moore v. Catholic Episcopal Corporation, 2015 NSSC 308 Date: 20150624 Docket: Syd No. 379320 Registry: Sydney Between: Mary Rose Moore, Robert Moore, Natashia McSween,
GENERAL RULES ABOUT COSTS
PRACTICE DIRECTION PART 44 DIRECTIONS RELATING TO PART 44 GENERAL RULES ABOUT COSTS SECTION 7 SOLICITOR S DUTY TO NOTIFY CLIENT: RULE 44.2 7.1 For the purposes of rule 44.2 client includes a party for
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. Nuttall, 2016 BCSC 73 Regina v. John Stuart Nuttall and Amanda Marie Korody Date: 20160111 Docket: 26392 Registry: Vancouver Restriction on Publication:
IN THE MATTER of the Certified Management Accountants Act, 2010, S.O. 2010, c.6, Sched. B;
IN THE MATTER of the Society of Industrial and Cost Accountants of Ontario Act, 1941, Statutes of Ontario 1941, c.77; as amended by Statutes of Ontario 1967, c.129; Statutes of Ontario 1971, c.126; Statutes
The Law Society of British Columbia In the matter of the Legal Profession Act, SBC 1998, c.9 and a hearing concerning AARON MURRAY LESSING.
2012 LSBC 19 Report issued: May 28, 2012 Citations issued: March 23, 2011 and July 28, 2011 The Law Society of British Columbia In the matter of the Legal Profession Act, SBC 1998, c.9 and a hearing concerning
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Creswell v. Murphy 2018 NSSC 11
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Creswell v. Murphy 2018 NSSC 11 Date: 20180119 Docket: Hfx No. 230470 Registry: Halifax Between: William Creswell and Helen Creswell - Plaintiffs v. Keith Murphy
Case Name: CEJ Poultry Inc. v. Intact Insurance Co.
Page 1 Case Name: CEJ Poultry Inc. v. Intact Insurance Co. Counsel: RE: CEJ Poultry Inc., and Intact Insurance Company and The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company [2012] O.J. No. 3005 2012 ONSC
The Medical Act, S.N.S , c.10, -and- HEARING COMMITTEE DECISION
PROVINCE OF NOVA SCOTIA ) COUNTY OF HALIFAX ) IN THE MATTER OF: The Medical Act, S.N.S. 1995-96, c.10, -and- IN THE MATTER OF: A Complaint of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Nova Scotia against
LAW SOCIETY OF ALBERTA IN THE MATTER OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION ACT; AND
LAW SOCIETY OF ALBERTA IN THE MATTER OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION ACT; AND IN THE MATTER OF A HEARING REGARDING THE CONDUCT OF DONNA HALLETT A MEMBER OF THE LAW SOCIETY OF ALBERTA Single Bencher Hearing Committee:
ALBERTA OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER ORDER H September 22, 2006 CALGARY HEALTH REGION. Review Number H0960
ALBERTA OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER ORDER H2006-003 September 22, 2006 CALGARY HEALTH REGION Review Number H0960 Office URL: http://www.oipc.ab.ca Summary: The Applicant s husband
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Hyson v. Nova Scotia (Public Service LTD), 2016 NSSC 153
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Hyson v. Nova Scotia (Public Service LTD), 2016 NSSC 153 Date: 2016-06-16 Docket: Hfx No. 447446 Registry: Halifax Between: Annette Louise Hyson Applicant v. Nova
Notice. Part 2 GAZETTE OFFICIELLE DU QUÉBEC, November 10, 2004, Vol. 136, No Region 14 Lanaudière
Part 2 GAZETTE OFFICIELLE DU QUÉBEC, November 10, 2004, Vol. 136, No. 45 3115 THEREFORE, the Minister of Health and Social Services determines 8 November 2004 to be the date on which sections 72 to 92
Case: 3:11-cv TMR Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/07/11 Page: 1 of 13 PAGEID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
Case 311-cv-00397-TMR Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/11 Page 1 of 13 PAGEID # 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION ZIMMER, INC., 345 E. Main St., Suite 400 Warsaw, IN 46580 Plaintiff,
OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION & PRIVACY COMMISSIONER for Prince Edward Island. Order No. FI Re: Department of Finance.
OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION & PRIVACY COMMISSIONER for Prince Edward Island Order No. FI-15-008 Re: Department of Finance October 20, 2015 Prince Edward Island Information and Privacy Commissioner Karen
IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA. Citation: R. v. McCarthy s Roofing Limited, 2016 NSPC 21
IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. McCarthy s Roofing Limited, 2016 NSPC 21 Date: March 31, 2016 Docket: 2854099, 2854100, 2854101, 2854102 Registry: Halifax Between: Her Majesty the
Kaufmann v Saskatchewan Government and General Employees' Union, 2012 SKQB 284
Kaufmann v Saskatchewan Government and General Employees' Union, 2012 SKQB 284 2012-07-17 QUEEN S BENCH FOR SASKATCHEWAN Date: 2012 07 17 Docket: Q.B.G. 557/2012 Citation: 2012 SKQB 284 Judicial Centre:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Date: 20080530 Docket: S109066 Registry: New Westminster Between: Frank Rayner Plaintiff And: Lorraine Arnbjurg Rayner, Executrix of the Estate of Anna Lindortf,
erne Court of Nova Scotia Michael MacKay Plai and Nova Scotia Power Incorporated Defendant Notice of Action
( 20:11 NOV 0 3 Z011 Pic No. PFHrfHONOT AR~u erne Court of Nova Scotia Be ween: Michael MacKay Plai and Nova Scotia Power Incorporated Defendant Notice of Action Proceeding under the Class Proceedings
CIVIL EVIDENCE (JERSEY) LAW 2003
CIVIL EVIDENCE (JERSEY) LAW 2003 Revised Edition Showing the law as at 1 January 2013 This is a revised edition of the law Civil Evidence (Jersey) Law 2003 Arrangement CIVIL EVIDENCE (JERSEY) LAW 2003
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Between PAUL CHOTALAL. And THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. C.V. 2014-00155 Between PAUL CHOTALAL Claimant And THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Defendants Before the Honourable
The overriding objective.. Rule 1.1 Application of the overriding objective by the court Rule 1.2 Duty of parties.rule 1.3
Contents of this Part PART 1 OVERRIDING OBJECTIVE OF THESE RULES The overriding objective.. Rule 1.1 Application of the overriding objective by the court Rule 1.2 Duty of parties.rule 1.3 The overriding
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Gillis v. BCE Inc., 2014 NSSC 279
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Gillis v. BCE Inc., 2014 NSSC 279 Date: 2014-07-17 Docket: Hfx. No. 234376 Registry: Halifax Between: John Gillis, Jane Doe XVII, John Doe Ltd. XVII, Jane Doe XVIII,
NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: R. v. Simpson, 2018 NSCA 25. v. Her Majesty the Queen. Restriction on Publication: of the Criminal Code
NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: R. v. Simpson, 2018 NSCA 25 Date: 20180316 Docket: CAC 463697 Registry: Halifax Between: Paul Wayne Simpson Appellent v. Her Majesty the Queen Respondent Restriction
IN THE MATTER OF LEHMAN BROTHERS INTERNATIONAL (EUROPE) (IN ADMINISTRATION) ( LBIE ) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE INSOLVENCY ACT 1986
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL Case No.: A2/2016/4109 ON APPEAL FROM No.: 7942 of 2008 THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION COMPANIES COURT Before the Honourable Mr Justice Hildyard IN THE MATTER OF LEHMAN
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Press release issued by the Registrar. CHAMBER JUDGMENT STEEL AND MORRIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS 069 15.2.2005 Press release issued by the Registrar CHAMBER JUDGMENT STEEL AND MORRIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing
Guide to Litigation in Canada. Guide to Litigation in Canada 1
Guide to Litigation in Canada Guide to Litigation in Canada 1 CONTENTS Introduction: Litigating in Canada... 3 Litigation in Each Province Alberta... 4 British Columbia... 8 Manitoba... 11 New Brunswick...
DIFC COURT LAW. DIFC LAW No.10 of 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ DIFC COURT LAW DIFC LAW No.10 of 2004 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CASE PROCESSING IN NOVA SCOTIA YOUTH COURT
CASE PROCESSING IN NOVA SCOTIA YOUTH COURT 2011-12 to 2015-16 Prepared by: Policy, Planning and Research Nova Scotia Department of Justice June 2016 Table of Contents Table of Figures... ii Section 1:
Indexed As: Halifax (Regional Municipality) Pension Committee v. State Street Bank and Trust Co. et al.
The Halifax Regional Municipality Pension Committee (plaintiff) v. State Street Bank and Trust Company and State Street Global Advisors Ltd./Conseillers en Gestion State Street Ltée (defendants) (Hfx.
IN THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE ANGUILLA CIRCUIT (CIVIL) A.D. 2003
CLAIM NO. AXAHCV 2002/20 IN THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE ANGUILLA CIRCUIT (CIVIL) A.D. 2003 BETWEEN: SINEL TRUST ANGUILLA LTD. AND Claimant THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ANGUILLA
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Lymburner v. Nova Scotia (Health and Wellness) 2016 NSSC 23
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Lymburner v. Nova Scotia (Health and Wellness) 2016 NSSC 23 Date: 20160118 Docket: Hfx No. 435272 Registry: Halifax Between: Dr. Dana Lymburner v. Applicant Her Majesty
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE BEFORE THE DUBLIN COUNTY REGISTRAR
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE BEFORE THE DUBLIN COUNTY REGISTRAR Functions of the County Registrar Tomás Keys 1 1. This paper will focus on the most common applications that practitioners make in the Dublin County
Form 32. (Rule 8-1 (4) ) In the Supreme Court of British Columbia. and Defendant(s) NOTICE OF APPLICATION
NOTES Form 32 (Rule 8- (4) ) In the Supreme Court of British Columbia No. Between Plaintiff(s) and Defendant(s) NOTICE OF APPLICATION [Rule 22-3 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules applies to all forms.]
SASKATCHEWAN OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER
Date: March 28, 2007 File No.: 2006/012 SASKATCHEWAN OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER REPORT F-2007-002 Saskatchewan Government Insurance Summary: The applicant requested a review of
THE ROLE OF AN ESTATE TRUSTEE DURING LITIGATION IN ATLANTIC CANADA. Timothy C. Matthews, QC, TEP Stewart McKelvey
THE ROLE OF AN ESTATE TRUSTEE DURING LITIGATION IN ATLANTIC CANADA Timothy C. Matthews, QC, TEP Stewart McKelvey Legislation in the four Atlantic Provinces closely follows the example of the English Judicature
THE LAW SOCIETY OF ALBERTA RESIGNATION COMMITTEE REPORT
THE LAW SOCIETY OF ALBERTA RESIGNATION COMMITTEE REPORT IN THE MATTER OF THE Legal Profession Act, and in the matter of an Application by NED EPHRAIM FROHLICH, a Member of the Law Society of Alberta to
TARIFF OF COSTS TABLE OF CONTENTS. Fees Payable to Lawyers in the Following Courts and Matters
TARIFF OF COSTS TABLE OF CONTENTS SCHEDULE PAGE SCHEDULE 1 Fees Payable to Lawyers in the Following Courts and Matters A In the Court of Appeal... 1 B In the Court of Queen s Bench... 3 C In the Court
MEMORANDUM TO COUNCIL
MEMORANDUM TO COUNCIL From: Lawrence Rubin Date: March 23, 2018 Subject: Professional Standards (Criminal) Committee Standard No. 3: Defence Obligations Regarding Disclosure FOR: APPROVAL INTRODUCTION
Bankruptcy petition dismissed where creditor failed in requirement to bring statutory demand to debtor s attention
Bankruptcy petition dismissed where creditor failed in requirement to bring statutory demand to debtor s attention Antony Canning v. Irwin Mitchell LLP [2017] EWHC 718 (Ch) Article by David Bowden Executive
INDIVISIBLE INJURIES Amelia J. Staunton February 2011 1 CONTACT LAWYER Amelia Staunton 604.891.0359 astaunton@dolden.com 1 Introduction What happens when a Plaintiff, recovering from injuries sustained
USPTO Trials: Understanding the Scope and Rules of Discovery
Client Alert August 21, 2012 USPTO Trials: Understanding the Scope and Rules of Discovery By Bryan P. Collins Discovery may perhaps be one of the most difficult items for clients, lawyers, and their adversaries
REVIEW REPORT FI December 29, 2015 Department of Finance
Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for Nova Scotia Report of the Commissioner (Review Officer) Catherine Tully REVIEW REPORT FI-13-28 December 29, 2015 Department of Finance Summary: The
DECISION File No NOVA SCOTIA POLICE REVIEW BOARD. The Police Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, Chapter 348 and the Regulations made pursuant thereto
DECISION File No. 04-0029 NOVA SCOTIA POLICE REVIEW BOARD IN THE MATTER OF: The Police Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, Chapter 348 and the Regulations made pursuant thereto - and - IN THE MATTER OF: An appeal filed
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Molhant Proost v. Bunford, 2017 NSSC 37. Between: Michaela Amalie Elizabeth Zoe Mauricia Molhant Proost.
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Molhant Proost v. Bunford, 2017 NSSC 37 Date: 20170210 Docket: Hfx. No. 451785 Registry: Halifax Between: Michaela Amalie Elizabeth Zoe Mauricia Molhant Proost and
Number 28 of Criminal Justice (Victims of Crime) Act 2017
Number 28 of 2017 Criminal Justice (Victims of Crime) Act 2017 Number 28 of 2017 CRIMINAL JUSTICE (VICTIMS OF CRIME) ACT 2017 CONTENTS PART 1 PRELIMINARY Section 1. Short title and commencement 2. Interpretation
MERITS AND JUSTICE OF THE CASE
Part: Board Approval: Entitlement Original signed by chair Number: EN-02 Last Revised: Board Order: Effective Date: January 1, 2014 Review Date: MERITS AND JUSTICE OF THE CASE GENERAL INFORMATION Every
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Monkman v. Serious Incident Response Team, 2015 NSSC 325. Director of SIRT (Serious Incident Response Team)
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Monkman v. Serious Incident Response Team, 2015 NSSC 325 Date: 2015-11-13 Docket: Hfx No. 430152 Registry: Halifax Between: Helen Monkman v. Appellant Director of
I ve Been Charged With an Offence: What Now?
I ve Been Charged With an Offence: What Now? Getting a Lawyer If the police have charged you with a criminal, drug or Youth Criminal Justice offence and you have been given a court date down the road:
Recent Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Mississippi Bar Convention Summer School for Lawyers 2016
Recent Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure The Mississippi Bar Convention Summer School for Lawyers 2016 History The impetus to change these Rules was the May 2010 Conference on Civil Litigation
Media Regulation Roundtable:
Media Regulation Roundtable: A PROPOSAL FOR FUTURE REGULATION OF THE MEDIA: A MEDIA STANDARDS AUTHORITY Introduction 1. This proposal outlines a model for media regulation which is independent, voluntary
Law Society of Alberta Trust Safety Approvals Guideline
Format updated April 2016 Table of Contents...1 I. The Nature of this Guideline...1 II. Statutory Role and Mandate...1 III. Setting up as a Sole Proprietor or a Firm...2 IV. Designation of a Responsible
Before : LADY JUSTICE ARDEN and LORD JUSTICE BRIGGS Between : - and -
Neutral Citation Number: [2016] EWCA Civ 1034 Case No: B5/2016/0387 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM Civil and Family Justice Centre His Honour Judge N Bidder QC 3CF00338 Royal Courts
RICHARD KWIZERA. and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
Date: 20081113 Docket: IMM-2148-08 Citation: 2008 FC 1261 Toronto, Ontario, November 13, 2008 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Hughes BETWEEN: RICHARD KWIZERA Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
CACH, LLC v. Taylor, Del: Court of Common Pleas CACH, LLC, Plaintiff, v. DEBORAH J. TAYLOR, Defendant. No. CPUU
CACH, LLC v. Taylor, Del: Court of Common Pleas 2013 CACH, LLC, Plaintiff, v. DEBORAH J. TAYLOR, Defendant. No. CPUU4-12-003000. Court of Common Pleas Court of Delaware, New Castle County. Submitted: January
Criminal Records (Expungement of Convictions for Historical Homosexual Offences) Bill
Recommendation Government Bill As reported from the Justice Committee Commentary The Justice Committee has examined the Criminal Records (Expungement of Convictions for and recommends that it be passed
Washington, DC Washington, DC 20510
May 4, 2011 The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy The Honorable Charles Grassley Chairman Ranking Member Committee on the Judiciary Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate United States Senate Washington,
FEB - 9 / Hfx. No
FEB - 9 / 217 2016 Hfx. No. 454744 Supreme Court of Nova Scotia Application by Victory Farms Incorporated and Jonathan Mullen Mink Ranch Limited (the "Applicants") for relief under the Companies' Creditors
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (Commercial List)
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (Commercial List) Court File No. CV-17-11697-00GO- THE HONOURABLE MR FRIDAY, THE 15th DAY JUSTICE LEDERMAN OF SEPTEMBER 2017 BETWEEN: VOLKAN BASEGMEZ, CEM BLEDA BASEGMEZ,
Court Procedure Booklet APPLYING FOR A CIVIL RESTRAINING ORDER. (Without Notice to the Other Party)
Court Procedure Booklet APPLYING FOR A CIVIL RESTRAINING ORDER (Without Notice to the Other Party) Revised January, 2017 APPLYING FOR A CIVIL RESTRAINING ORDER (Without Notice) CONTENTS INTRODUCTION...