N. Disclosure by Third Parties

• Author: Julien D. Payne - Marilyn A. Payne
• Pages: 555-555

Page 555

A bank may be ordered to produce records¹³²or answer interrogatories respecting a spouse’s accounts, loans, and securities.¹³³A wife’s application to examine all the husband’s business records at the various banks with which he deals in his management of various companies should be dismissed where it would be impossible for the banks to comply with an order in the absence of greater specificity and the banks would have to guess the extent of any court-ordered breach of their statutory duty of confidentiality. The dismissal of such an application may be declared to be without prejudice to a future application for similar relief at a later date when the wife has more precise information that will render it practical for the banks to comply with any appropriate order.¹³⁴In Purves,¹³⁵a husband’s bank was ordered to produce records relating to a term deposit, but an order for production of all banking records was refused; costs were reserved pending determination of whether the wife’s assertions had a sound foundation or she was on a fruitless "fishing expedition."

The courts must be vigilant in ensuring that custodians of financial records and financial advisers are not unduly harassed by being subpoenaed willy-nilly to attend and give evidence in interim proceedings for spousal and child support. Where the applicant has other avenues of relief available, for example, a notice to produce, and there is nothing to suggest that the respondent spouse will not provide all the information, it is improper to require the attendance of third parties for the purpose of using their evidence. Although there may be cases where the relevant information can only be obtained from strangers to the litigation, such cases are exceptional. It is an abuse of process to conduct an examination for discovery of strangers to the litigation that is nothing more than a "fishing expedition."¹³⁶

[132] Purves v. Purves (1985), 65 B.C.L.R. 339 (S.C.).

[133] Little v. Little (1985), 49 C.P.C. 169 (N.S.T.D.).

[134]...