C.A. No. 104705 NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Chipman, Hart and Jones, JJ.A. BETWEEN: DOROTHY A. ROBINSON and EDWARD I. ROBINSON Respondent Brian J. Hebert for the Appellant Gerald R.P. Moir, Q.C. for the Respondent Appeal Heard: September 28, 1994 Judgment Delivered: October 4, 1994 THE COURT: The appeal is allowed with costs as per reasons for judgment of Chipman, J.A.; Hart and Jones, JJ.A., concurring. CHIPMAN, J.A.: This is an appeal from a decision of a judge of the Supreme Court in Chambers granting an application under s. 21(4) of the Nova Scotia Evidence Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 154 ordering inspection of banking records to the appellant, but imposing two limitations thereon. The parties were divorced. The appellant appealed to this Court in 1993 from decision of Mr. Justice Boudreau dividing property between them as separated spouses pursuant to the Matrimonial Property Act. This Court allowed the wife's appeal in part holding among other things that the judge erred in ruling inadmissible certain evidence about the value of scallop licenses. This Court found it impossible to value the fishing licenses of the respondent as there was no reliable evidence of their value. This Court remitted the matter to the Supreme Court for determination on evidence to be adduced by the parties of the value inter alia of the fishing licenses and boats of the respondent. In the course of preparation for the new trial, the appellant applied to the Supreme Court for the order under s. 21(1) of the Evidence Act. The respondent testified at the hearing. The issue on appeal before us related to records of company known as Fundy Associates Limited and vessel owned by it called “the Lady Marion II". The respondent testified that he had no significant interest in the company Fundy Associates Limited and that he only owned one share in it although he was listed as Director and Officer. He maintained that this was mere formality. The Chambers judge recited request of respondent's counsel that the documentation to be produced be limited to that subsequent to the original trial of this matter in October of 1991. The Chambers judge observed that it did seem that the respondent had some involvement in the initial purchase of "the Lady Marion II" and had given personal guarantee with respect to it. The Chambers judge held that he would grant the order respecting examination of the records respecting Fundy Associates Limited and "the Lady Marion II" with two limitations; (a) that the examination be limited to income received by the respondent from these entities and (b) because counsel for the respondent said that all information had been provided up to the original trial, the examination would be limited to material from that time forward. review of the decision of this Court indicates that the Court was definitely not satisfied with the disclosure of the respondent respecting his fishing licenses and vessels. The new trial was ordered so that all relevant evidence respecting these items in contest could be obtained. The Chambers judge has exercised his judgment in granting the order. However, he has given no valid reasons for the two restrictions and we order that they should be deleted. The respondent has since gone into bankruptcy. He contends that the examination ordered by the Chambers judge is nothing but a duplication of the detailed and searching examinations that will be made of his assets by the trustee in the bankruptcy proceedings. That may or may not be the case but for the purposes of securing full disclosure in this proceeding which is the one with which we are concerned, it is an insufficient reason to limit full disclosure. The appeal is allowed and the two restrictions placed in the order of the Chambers judge respecting the books or records relating to Fundy Associates Limited or the motor vessel "Lady Marion II" are deleted. The appellant shall recover her costs of this appeal which are fixed at $500.00, plus disbursements. Chipman, J.A. Concurred in: Hart, J.A. Jones, J.A. 1990 S.A. No.1209‑000109 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA BETWEEN: DOROTHY ROBINSON and EDWARD ROBINSON ORDER BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DONALD M. HALL, IN CHAMBERS. UPON READING the application and all other documents on file herein; AND UPON READING the affidavit of Brian J. Hebert dated November 9, 1993; AND UPON HEARING Brian J. Hebert, solicitor for the Petitioner, Dorothy Robinson; AND UPON HEARING S. Clifford Hood, Q.C., solicitor for the Respondent, Edward Robinson; C.A. No. 104705 NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN: DOROTHY A. ROBINSON and EDWARD I. ROBINSON Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: CHIPMAN, J.A.
The parties divorced - the appellant later appealed the trial decision dividing property between them as separated spouses. Her appeal was allowed in part, the court holding the judge erred in ruling inadmissible certain evidence about the value of scallop licences. The matter was remitted to Supreme Court for determination on evidence to be adduced by the parties of the value of the respondent's fishing operation. In preparation, the appellant applied to the Supreme Court for an order to inspect the respondent's bank records pursuant to s. 21(1) of the Evidence Act. The respondent argued he had limited involvement in the enterprise being discovered. The judge granted the order with limitations: the examination was to be limited to income received by the respondent and covering the period from the trial date forward. The appellant appealed, arguing the limitations disallowed full disclosure. In the interim, the respondent went into bankruptcy and argued the examination would be fully conducted by the trustee. Allowing the appeal, that a possible duplication was no reason to limit full disclosure.