Digest: M.R.L.P. v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 SKQB 248

• Date: September 18, 2019

Reported as: 2018 SKQB 248

Docket Number: QB18242 , QBG 1485/17 JCS

Court: Court of Queen's Bench

Date: 2019-09-18

Judges:

• Currie

Subjects:

• Civil Procedure � Affidavits � Admissibility
• Civil Procedure � Class Action
• Civil Procedure � Class Action � Disclosure � Pre-certification
• Civil Procedure � Queen�s Bench Rule, Section 6-13 � Cross-examination of Affidavits
• Civil Procedure � Queen�s Bench Rule, Section 13-30
• Class Action � Procedure

Digest: The proposed representative plaintiffs (plaintiffs) filed affidavits in support of their class action alleging that the defendants participated in a practice of sterilizing Aboriginal women without their proper or informed consent. The affidavits were filed in anticipation of the hearing of their application for certification of the action. The defendants applied for orders permitting them to cross-examine the plaintiffs on their affidavits. The plaintiffs consented to the orders with restrictions, which were opposed by the defendants. The defendants also applied for an order requiring production of specified medical records of the plaintiffs and an order requiring the plaintiffs� counsel to disclose the name of potential class members so that medical records could be preserved. The defendants objected to the contents of one the affidavits, arguing that it breached provisions of Rule 13-30 of The Queen�s Bench Rules. The issues were: 1) the objections to the affidavits; 2) the cross-examination on the affidavits with sub-issues: a) the availability of an order for cross-examination; b) the proposed protocol for the cross-examination; c) the need for a protocol; d) circumstances of the plaintiffs; and e) conclusion as to implementation of restrictions on cross-examination; 3) production of medical records; and 4) the disclosure of potential class member names.
HELD: The issues were determined as follows: 1) the court did not strike the portion of the affidavit wherein the affiant was relating her personal experience and personal reaction to that experience. Portions of the affidavit that were not properly presented as being based on information and belief were struck, as was information regarding disclosure of �without prejudice� discussions. Any portions of the affidavit found to be opinion and argument were struck; 2)a) to be ordered, it must be established that the cross-examination will assist the court in determining whether the criteria for certification under s....