Client Update: Changes to the Rules of the Supreme Court
Recent changes to the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1986, SNL 1986, c 42, Sch D
On December 14, 2012, several changes were made to the Rules of the Supreme Court. These changes include: who may act as representative plaintiffs, settlement offers, and contingency agreements.
PUBLIC TRUSTEE REPLACES REGISTRAR
Changes have been made to the rules which dictate who may act as a representative plaintiff in applications for certification, where all the members of the group are under disability. The old Rule 7A.04 allowed a parent, guardian or the registrar to act, whereas now the registrar is replaced with the public trustee.
The same is true for Rule 56.30 with regards to probate and administration of the estate of a mentally disabled person. This rule has been updated to reflect that any role played by the registrar should now be changed to the public trustee.
SETTLEMENT OFFERS UNDER RULE 20A.08
As of February 1, 2013, changes will impact the current provisions for failing to accept a settlement offer, imposing greater penalties to litigants who fail to accept an offer more favourable to an eventual outcome.
Under the new rules, if the plaintiff makes a settlement offer which is refused and the outcome is more favourable than the offer, the plaintiff will be entitled to double party and party costs plus taxed disbursements after the date of service of the offer.
If the defendant makes a settlement offer and the outcome is no more favourable for the plaintiff than that offer, the defendant will be entitled to party and party costs after the date of the offer.
If the defendant makes a settlement offer which is refused by the plaintiff, and the claim is dismissed at trial, the defendant will be entitled to party and party costs to the date of the offer and double party and party costs thereafter.
There will be a new rule regarding the scale of costs, dictating that once a judgment is awarded under a column of costs, that column cannot later be changed if settlement offer consequences apply.
The substantive cost consequences are not applicable to family proceedings.
The determinative date as to whether the new or old rules will apply is the date of the hearing of the matter. Therefore, offers and applications made under the old rules heard after February 1, 2013 will be considered under the new rules unless a successful argument is made otherwise.
While contingency agreements formally had to be filed with the court under Rule 55.16, this is now repealed and the requirement is only to provide a copy of the signed agreement to the client.
Bryan Mills and John Morse On May 21, 2019, the New Brunswick Labour and Employment Board (”Board”) dismissed an application by the New Brunswick Union of Public and Private Employees (“Union”) seeking certification as bargaining…Read More
Jonathan Coady and Justin Milne The Ontario Court of Appeal has found that the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act¹ is valid federal legislation.² The Act implements national minimum pricing standards to reduce greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions.…Read More
Richard Niedermayer, TEP, Jennifer Taylor and Bhreagh Ross, summer student There is a right to testamentary freedom under section 7 of the Charter, according to a recent decision of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court. In…Read More
John Samms Introduction Much ink has been spilled on the controversial 1969 power contract between Hydro-Quebec and CFLCo (the contract) and last week the Quebec Court of Appeal added to the pile with its decision…Read More
Kevin Landry On June 14, 2019, Health Canada announced the release of the final version of amendments to the Cannabis Regulations, which will permit for the production and sale of edibles, extracts and topicals. The…Read More
We are pleased to present the fourth issue of Discovery, our very own legal publication targeted to educational institutions in Atlantic Canada. While springtime for universities and colleges signal the culmination of classes, new graduates…Read More
Grant Machum and Richard Jordan In an earlier article, we considered an employer’s options when an employee departs and takes with them the social media contacts they have obtained during the course of their…Read More
Matthew Jacobs and Daniel Roth (summer student) “… we cannot be a Blockbuster government serving a Netflix society.” – The Hon. Minister Navdeep Bains paraphrasing the Hon. Scott Brison (May 2019, at the Empire…Read More
Tauna Staniland, Andrea Shakespeare, Kimberly Bungay and Alycia Novacefski The federal government has introduced new record keeping requirements for private, federally formed corporations governed by the Canada Business Corporations Act (“CBCA”). The amendments to the…Read More