Granview Farms Ltd. v. CBCL Ltd., (1997) 164 N.S.R.(2d) 153 (SC)

• Judge: Goodfellow, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: August 12, 1997
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: (1997), 164 N.S.R.(2d) 153 (SC)

Granview Farms v. CBCL Ltd. (1997), 164 N.S.R.(2d) 153 (SC);

    491 A.P.R. 153

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1997] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. SE.028

Granview Farms Limited, a body corporate (plaintiff) v. CBCL Limited, a body corporate (defendant)

(S.H. 96-130431)

Indexed As: Granview Farms Ltd. v. CBCL Ltd.

Nova Scotia Supreme Court

Goodfellow, J.

August 25, 1997.

Summary:

Granview Farms Ltd. sued CBCL Ltd. CBCL applied to strike Granview's plead­ings. Granview moved to strike an affidavit in support CBCL's application. The parties reached agreement on all but two issues.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court deter­mined the issues.

Editor's Note: For prior proceedings involv­ing these parties see 135 N.S.R.(2d) 105; 386 A.P.R. 105 (T.D.), 143 N.S.R.(2d) 275; 411 A.P.R. 275 (C.A.) and 151 N.S.R.(2d) 240; 440 A.P.R. 240 (S.C.C.).

Practice - Topic 3666

Evidence - Affidavits - Striking out - Irrelevant or improper matters - Granview Farms Ltd. moved to strike an affidavit in support of CBCL Ltd.'s application to strike Granview's pleadings - An issue was whether a letter between the parties' solici­tors and marked "Without Prejudice" was privileged and therefore inadmissible - The letter expressed views as to how matters might or might not proceed - It did not present itself as part of or associated with any settlement negotiations - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court held that no privi­lege attached to the letter and that it was admissible - See paragraphs 7 to 10.

Practice - Topic 3666

Evidence - Affidavits - Striking out - Irrelevant or improper matters - Granview Farms Ltd. moved to strike an affidavit in support of CBCL Ltd.'s application to strike Granview's pleadings - An issue was whether CBCL could tender portions of discovery evidence from a prior action involving the parties in its application to strike - It argued that there were exception­al circumstances that made it desirable in the interests of justice to allow them to be used (Civil Procedure Rule 18.14(1)(c)) - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court rejected the argument - There were no exceptional circumstances here - Further, the court held that the implied undertaking rule applied - The proposed discovery evidence could not be used for such a collateral purpose - See paragraphs 11 to 19.

Practice - Topic 4157

Discovery - Collateral use of discovery information (implied undertaking rule) - [See second Practice - Topic 3666 ].

Practice - Topic 4502

Discovery - Use of examination in court - Use of examination in another action - [See second Practice - Topic 3666 ].

Cases Noticed:

Merriam v. Nova Scotia (Attorney Gen­eral) (1995), 146 N.S.R.(2d) 153; 422 A.P.R. 153 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 9].

Morris et al. v. Stuckless (1995), 143 N.S.R.(2d) 212; 411 A.P.R. 212 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 11].

Sezerman v. Youle (1996), 150 N.S.R.(2d) 161; 436 A.P.R. 161 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Statutes Noticed:

Civil Procedure Rules (N.S.), rule 18.14(1)(c) [paras. 6, 13].

Counsel:

Michael J. Wood, for the plaintiff;

T. Arthur Barry and Nancy G. Rubin, for the defendant.

This matter was heard on August 12, 1997, before Goodfellow, J., of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, who delivered the following decision on August 25, 1997.