File:Hong v Lavy 2019 NSSC 271.pdf

From Ad IDEM / CMLA

Revision as of 14:34, 20 September 2019 by Anita Mielewczyk (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
Hong_v_Lavy_2019_NSSC_271.pdf(file size: 219 KB, MIME type: application/pdf)


File Index

The following index was taken from the files content:
supreme court nova scotia citation hong lavy nssc date docket registry halifax between: shae and co. applicants danny star elite inc group inc. respondents decision judge the honourable justice glen mcdougall heard september counsel roderick rogers q.c for michelle awad court: introduction seek withdraw set affidavits from file. purpose their request maintain confidentiality commercial information related parties personal third parties. argue that civil procedure rule does not apply because remedy they differs contemplated while discretionary order permitting withdrawal established example both effect are same public longer able access previously belonged file such, appropriate consider potential impact charter rights. acknowledge there basis statute rules sought modest support canadian case law proposition has discretion permit affidavit consent after been filed with but before "used yet important note courts have seldom exercised such rare instances record most often family matters which page proceed separate governed policy concerns distinct area law. motion reduce concern over prejudice either party alone sufficient must also militate against including interest open principle doing should dagenais/mentuck test appeal held applies all orders limit freedom expression press relation legal proceeding” [osif college physicians surgeons nsca carswellns "osif para see vancouver sun re, [2004 scr scc 23-31 toronto newspapers ltd ontario, [2005 carswellont "toronto requested present matter would records application appropriate. only commercially sensitive will suffice here plead private interests relative meet first stage precedent non-parties this subject consideration importance stake minimal infringement proposed principle. facts dispute between two wealthy individuals involved acrimonious shareholder financial management closely company almost equal shareholders sensio manufactures distributes small appliances made china annual revenues excess $140,000,000.00 usd august seeking relief under schedule companies act rsns was down four day hearing john murphy starting june prove merits respective positions prior date. eve negotiated resolution certain conditions intend remove within days. [10 granted joint adjourning without day. [11 further affidavits. [12 declined issue part wanted address relevance submit seal speak governing whether principles ought designed accomplish similar ends. [13 when came insisted adjourned provide notice media accordance protocol purpose. although opposed idea somewhat reluctantly acceded court’s gave requisite member participated went ahead being opposed. [14 recognizes public's need provides limited exceptions limiting via scope out follows: court's public, exceptionally kept confidential. provisions proceedings protect child prevail rule. accessible directly through may [15 require section rights permitted 85.04(1 satisfied other freedoms [16 argument depends distinction nor indicate its particular form content rather 85.04(2 examples order: any following confidentiality: sealing document exhibit proceeding; requiring prothonotary block recording banning publication person who referred identified pseudonym heading. [17 above closed list ordinary meaning stating governs infringe explicitly state exceptional essence encodes prevailing jurisprudence canada considerations [18 well endorsed time again ontario fish said constitutional climate administration thrives exposure light — withers cloud secrecy. [19 more recently lebel provided brief survey principle's underlying purposes camera requires participants conduct themselves integrity encourages confidence particularly regarding judges carsweiibc 83-4 [83 another frequently justification openness fosters judicial edmonton journal, per wilson thus argued induced properly know watchful eye what led bentham [p]ublicity very soul keenest spur exertion, surest guards improbity burton benthamiana select extracts works jeremy [84 ensures done seen necessary preserve quoted argument, too: effects publicity maximum considered insuring producing judgments. treatise evidence emphasis original adopted sun: independence impartiality integral system public’s understanding moreover, principal component legitimacy process why large abide decisions [para 25] [20 identify genesis lord denning's obiter remarks comet products u.k hawkex plastics [comet e.r eng. c.a where notes defendant had used threatened cross-examination gill [gill gill, bcsc ariss abqb gallagher [gallagher holdings unison resources read lines infer withdrawn some circumstances proceeded non-exhaustive factors among those asked affidavit. [21 worth noting pertained common then canada's current authority underpinning occurs way media. [22 2(b underpins right free ideas opinions stages noted wood (as his recent attorney general revenue agency eyes ears members lack attend rely reports broadcasting corp new brunswick forest expressed relationship follows [canadian [1996 carswelin8 "new inextricably tied guaranteed permits about turn discuss put forward criticisms practices express operation clearly ambit too obtain place. [23 cbc wrote gather freely views carswellbc accepted long adoption now enshrined due fact associated clear them protects oneself needed engage expressive activity [24 during proceeding presently misconstrues begin trial end settled found foster-jacques jacques primary illuminate avenue accountability every "foster- words dickson c.j one accessibility concomitant accountability.” [macintyre s.c.r [25 supra placed early point vests finally expressly reasons macintyre emphasized presumption extends pre-trial "the "is linked protected 2(b) advances core values therein therefore 23-27 [justice fish's emphasis] [26 confined documents relied constitutionally grounded becomes removal trigger careful attention limitation [27 framework developed dagenais s.c.c mentuck carswellman sierra club minister finance (s.c.c carswellnat basic ensure place limits [sierra [28 relating since osif clarified respect proceeding: context bans meant flexible contextual novo carsweiins [emphasis added] [29 pertaining necessarily public. restrict transparency proceeding. [30 unused files few existing precedents binding jurisdiction. [31 three cases cited provinces master brine british columbia corollary matrimonial action contained scandalous allegations could adverse ongoing settlement discussions [32 review dealt touched applications several choosing exercise way. [36 summary appears upon following: mistake? sense having court, course considering application? pending indicated intends affidavit? strategic tactical deny relevant ability cross-examine deponent? prejudiced adversely affected [33 neither reviewed suggest exhaustive determinative pre-gill involve were largely unsuccessful [for ominayak bicon lake indian nation election returning officer (2000 f.t.r fed t.d r.o.m construction heeley (1982 alta l.r (2d c.p.c a.r d.l.r (3d 717, carswellalta q.b syntex national health welfare (1995 c.p.r f,t.r clarke kay eng quartz hill mining exporte young (1971 67, [1971 w.l.r represent given denying withdrawal. [34 main turned availability affiant workers union frankel structural steel ltd. successful divisional workers’ (1976 o.r c.l.l.c 14,010 ont div purposed introducing tribunal appealed into incorporates factor asks intent accurate characterization might introduced procedural history record. [35 little discussion caselaw though listed "there become para. explore nature these pattern involving columbia, grounds did however available means physical briefly addressed involves submitted interim spousal lee j.’s once reported himself jointly alberta queen's bench allowed allowing primarily allow someone added 10] militating includes analysis reasoning. fails implications granting expression. [37 gabriel oral sole exercising cites helpful exhaustive.” number addition militated appear directed authorities [38 achieve stated aim deemed privileged confidential remained document. sealed envelope manner 39.04(4 whole struck direct [39 possibility requesting replacement entitled hear deponent material difference evidence: still possessed prepared discovery examinations contents already taken moreover chose sic differ originals points applicant deponent(s so. collateral approach 39, states view nonetheless impugn credibility witness goes say: agree perhaps conclude ordered remains usual applicable seems unlikely privilege attach production pursuant inconsistent statement cross-examining short opposing use action. [40 excerpts especially applicants’ submission materially different met proceeds retain make file, acts effectively indicates engaged gill. [41 41, [2002 affirmed applied leading requests bombardier carbide [bombardier carswellque [42 steps best described iacobucci two-step determining ban justified: prevent serious risk interest? question elements real substantial well-grounded poses threat can terms merely specific reasonable alternatives how much reasonably possible, salutary outweigh deleterious proceedings? [43 step balancing undertaken second significant cannot less restrictive measures requirement efficacy reflects minimally impairing. [44 exist concurrently interest, wellness resolve business outsourcing yields greater persons connected suffer economic harm foresaw just [55 phrase clarification qualify simply existence contract cause lose harming interests. breach agreement characterized broadly preserving binnie [2000 outweighs [56 cautious constitutes remembered takes branch alive fundamental generally muldoon eli lilly novopharm (1994 [45 disclosure interfere sensio's competitive position market prescribed speculated future stakeholders account test. privacy [46 remainder a.b (litigation guardian bragg communications identity cyber bullying age fake social profile [ab "bragg keeping awarding minimum required mitigate refused applicant's profile. [47 paraphrased dagenais/mentauk inquiry each impairs possible alternative restriction unjustified turns proper balance girl. [48 protecting medical unopposed names patients emergency room physician whose submissions administrative included charts hospital together full spanned thousands pages filled identifying particulars hospitals r.s.n.s 71(1 prohibits patient protection foipop s.n.s. 4a(2 specifically prohibitions prevails legislation. [49 t4s containing security numbers addresses educational employment credit card [50 rises level subsection 22(3 [freedom act, s.n.s presumptively unreasonable 22(4 [51 exempt 4(2 far provision overridden underscored overriding base protections regularly bateman j.a shannex care 35: disputed remain afforded regime. [52 remedies than wholesale readily nikki robar redacting total five paragraphs according july 13, dealing supplemental paras 62; 155; [53 even concerning education handful paragraphs. february 317; 192; danielle agnew 160-169. [54 costly onerous bulk discussed six eighteen aside easily fraction hardly integration information. conclusion body providing probability dismissed suggesting result decision. [57 attempt evade circumvent requirements grant well-established anything interest. [58 impairment invasive [59 portion deceased issued 29th sequestered “…all sworn unsworn versions behalf vincent portera maria ruttenberg pieter kriel gerald rutigliano james muccilli shall force sixty days release give redact. [60 decide redacted sealed. [61 foregoing merit denied.

File history

Click on a date/time to view the file as it appeared at that time.

Date/TimeDimensionsUserComment
current14:34, 20 September 2019 (219 KB)Anita Mielewczyk (Talk | contribs)

The following page links to this file:

Personal tools