CITATION: GEA Group AG v. Flex-N-Gate Corporation, 2009 ONCA 619 |
DATE: 20090821 |
DOCKET: C49842 and C49855 |
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO |
Weiler, Cronk and Blair JJ.A. |
BETWEEN |
GEA Group AG |
Applicant (Respondent in appeal) |
Ventra Group Co. and Timothy Graham |
Respondents (Appellants) |
And |
Flex-N-Gate Corporation |
(Appellant) |
Bryan Finlay, Q.C. and Marie-Andrée Vermette, for the appellant Flex-N-Gate Corporation William V. Sasso and Jacqueline A. Horvat, for the appellants Ventra Group Co. and Timothy Graham |
Peter F.C. Howard and Samaneh Hosseini, for the respondent GEA Group AG |
Heard: March 11, 2009 |
On appeal from the order of Justice Peter A. Cumming of the Superior Court of Justice dated December 9, 2008, with reasons reported at 2008 CanLII 70043 (ON S.C.). |
Cronk J.A.: |
[1] This appeal involves the equitable remedy of pre-action
discovery, sometimes referred to as a “
[2] The appellant, Flex-N-Gate Corporation (“FNG”), is
a privately held corporation incorporated under the laws of
[3] The appellant, Ventra Group Co. (“Ventra”), is a Canadian automotive supplier. It was created on the amalgamation in December 2002 of Ventra Group Inc., Ventra International Holdings Inc. and VTA Acquisition Company. Khan is Ventra’s ultimate beneficial owner.
[4] The appellant, Timothy Graham (“Graham”), is a lawyer
authorized to practise law in
[5] The respondent, GEA Group AG (“GEA”), is a
public corporation incorporated under the laws of
[6] On December 2, 2003, FNG made a preliminary, non-binding offer to purchase a GEA subsidiary company (referred to by the parties as the “Indicative Offer”). In both the Indicative Offer and a subsequent final offer to purchase made by FNG to GEA on March 17, 2004 (the “Final Offer”), FNG made several statements suggesting that it held substantial assets. These included claims that:
(i) FNG’s “operating assets remain 100% owned and operated by FNG”;
(ii) FNG is a “privately owned manufacturing enter-prise…which owns and directly controls the oper-ations of: Fifteen (15) facilities in the United States; Ten (10) Canadian businesses; Three (3) Mexican plants; Two (2) operations in Brazil; One (1) plant in Argentina; and Six (6) plants in Spain”;
(iii) FNG owned 100% of 37 operating entities, one of which was Ventra;
(iv) “in October 2001…FNG acquired control of 100% of the stock of [Ventra], a publicly traded Tier 1 global automotive supplier”;
(v) “FNG subsequently converted Ventra into a private company under applicable Canadian and securities law procedures”;
(vi) FNG had several plant locations throughout
(vii) FNG “currently generates an annual EBITDA [earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization] of approximately USD $200 million”.
[7] On May 3, 2004, FNG and GEA entered into a sale and purchase agreement (the “SPA”) regarding FNG’s purchase of the GEA subsidiary. Graham acted as FNG’s Canadian counsel throughout the negotiations and the parties’ subsequent dealings regarding the SPA.
[8] At FNG’s request, the closing date for the transaction contemplated by the SPA was postponed twice. Ultimately, FNG failed to close the transaction.
[9] In October 2004, as a result of FNG’s failure to close the SPA transaction, GEA commenced arbitration proceedings pursuant to the SPA and under the rules of the German Institute for Arbitration (the “Arbitration”), in which it claimed damages against FNG in an amount in excess of €210 million for alleged breach of contract. FNG, in turn, counterclaimed against GEA for damages for breach of the SPA.
[10] The Arbitration was divided into two phases: the liability phase and the damages phase. On September 15, 2006, the arbitral tribunal ruled in favour of GEA on the issue of liability, holding that FNG had breached the SPA, and dismissed FNG’s counterclaim. The tribunal held that GEA was entitled to damages in an amount that would put it in the position it would have enjoyed if FNG had fulfilled its obligations under the SPA.
[11] FNG thereafter applied to a German appellate court to vacate the tribunal’s liability decision. The application was denied on the ground of prematurity since the quantum of GEA’s damages had yet to be determined. Costs of the application were awarded to GEA in the amount of €228,760. FNG did not appeal this decision.
[12] The damages phase of the Arbitration is now in progress.
[13] Khan testified during the liability phase of the Arbitration. He said that: (i) Ventra has over $1 billion in sales; and (ii) Ventra is a sister corporation of FNG that is owned by him personally through a Nova Scotia LLC. The latter assertion conflicted with FNG’s representation, in both the Indicative and Final Offers, that Ventra was a wholly-owned FNG subsidiary.
[14] On March 8, 2007, a settlement meeting took
place in
[15] The parties dispute certain of the events that transpired at the March 8 meeting. Heckel and von Oppen allege that during the meeting, Graham suggested to GEA’s representatives that: (i) GEA should consider a modest settlement of its claims against FNG since FNG, “with the help of a renowned US law firm”, had been restructured so as to make it difficult for GEA to seize its assets; and (ii) FNG’s enterprise value was only roughly “60 million”.
[16] Weimann and Graham strongly deny that Graham made the statements attributed to him by Heckel and von Oppen. They also allege that the discussions at the March 8 meeting were confidential, a claim denied by Heckel and von Oppen.
[17] The parties are also divided on what was said during a telephone conversation on January 30, 2008 between Heckel and Weimann. Heckel claims that he called Weimann on that date to inquire whether FNG was going to pay the outstanding €228,760 costs award made in favour of GEA by the German appellate court. Heckel maintains that Weimann replied that FNG was not going to pay the costs award and indicated in German that FNG was just “two sheds in the landscape”, suggesting that FNG had no substantial assets. Weimann denies having made these statements.
[18] Based on the foregoing, GEA concluded that sometime after the December 2, 2003 Indicative Offer and before the January 30, 2008 telephone discussion between Weimann and Heckel, FNG transferred all its assets to Khan or other unknown persons in an effort to become judgment proof, thereby making it impossible for GEA to collect its anticipated damages award in the Arbitration from FNG.
[19] On July 7, 2008, about five months after Heckel
and Weimann’s telephone conversation, GEA applied to the Superior Court of
Justice in
[20] In support of its application, GEA relied in
part on an affidavit sworn on June 20, 2008 by GEA’s legal counsel in
3. The Norwich Pharmacal Order would provide GEA with an equitable right of discovery to obtain evidence from [Ventra] and…[Graham] relating to an apparent fraud being perpetuated [sic] by FNG and its principals to shield itself from any recovery by GEA. As set forth below, substantial evidence exists that from October 2004 to present FNG has transferred assets to other persons or entities to attempt to make itself judgment proof.
….
21. It is thus apparent that transfers of assets
were made by FNG, including, apparently, the transfer of [Ventra] shares from
FNG to a
….
25. It is thus evident that at some point between December 2, 2003, when FNG stated that it was the sole owner of numerous plants and businesses…and January 30, 2008, when FNG purported to have virtually no assets, FNG in effect transferred to Khan or other persons as yet unknown all its assets, in an effort to make it impossible for GEA to collect its expected judgment in the Arbitration. Moreover…it may be that FNG disposed of some “60 million” in value between those dates alone.
[21] GEA’s application for a
(i) Ventra to disclose and produce “all documents relating to the transfer of its shares from [FNG] to other persons or entities”;
(ii) Graham to attend an examination by GEA to answer questions with respect to “any and all conveyances, transfers or transactions whereby FNG’s assets, including those of [Ventra] or its subsidiaries, were transferred from FNG to other entities”; and
(iii) Graham to disclose and produce to GEA all documents relating to the alleged conveyances. [Emphasis added.]
[22] On July 9, 2008, Wilton-Siegel J. granted the
requested
[23] Under the
(i) Ventra was required “to forthwith disclose and produce to [GEA] all documents relating to the transfer of the interest of [FNG] in [Ventra] to other persons or entities (the “Conveyances”), the particulars of which are within [Ventra’s] know-ledge”;
(ii) Graham was required “to attend an examination by [GEA] to answer questions with respect to any and all conveyances, transfers or transactions whereby FNG’s interest in [Ventra] was transferred from FNG to other entities and to forthwith disclose and produce to [GEA] all documents relating to the Conveyances”;
(iii) Ventra and Graham and “any other party that has or obtains knowledge” of the application or any resulting order were prohibited from disclosing the existence of the application, order, or any act or conduct undertaken in compliance with the order to any other person or party, except for the limited purpose of complying with the order or obtaining legal advice with respect to compliance with the order;
(iv) until further order of the court, the court file was sealed to protect the confidentiality of the appli-cation, any resulting order, and the conduct taken in compliance with any order; and
(v) any affected party was authorized to apply for directions in respect of the order or to vary or set aside the order on notice to counsel for GEA.
[Emphasis added.]
[24] GEA did not appeal from the application judge’s
decision to restrict the scope of the
[25] On July 22, 2008, Ventra and Graham moved to set
aside the
[26] Significantly, Graham also swore in his affidavit that: “FNG has never owned Ventra shares even indirectly”; “No representation (guarantee) was made in the SPA concerning FNG’s ownership of Ventra shares”; and “FNG held no ownership interest in Ventra at the time of or at any time following the SPA.”
[27] In advance of the argument of their motion to
set aside the
[28] By order dated September 3, 2008, C. Campbell J. granted the requested variation of the Norwich Order, permitting disclosure to FNG of the Norwich application, the orders made thereunder, and the related proceedings and evidence (the “September Order”). Under paragraph one of the September Order, the variation granted was subject to certain conditions, including:
…
b) [GEA, Ventra, Graham] and FNG are free to use the information provided, and the documents and transcripts generated in these proceedings in other proceedings that [GEA] may initiate either in Ontario or elsewhere and whether it be in court or in a private dispute resolution proceeding; and
c) notwithstanding paragraph (b) above, no cause of action will be commenced or maintained by any of [Ventra, Graham], FNG and/or any of their shareholders, directors, officers, employees, agents or counsel (including, without limitation, Shahid Khan) with respect to the publication or disclosure of the materials generated, or information disclosed, in this proceeding by [GEA] or any of its directors, officers, employees, agents or counsel, including without limitation that any statements made are, under the law of defamation, accorded absolute privilege.
[29] Pursuant to paragraph two of the September Order, the conditions imposed under that order were stated to be without prejudice to FNG’s right to move before the court to vary or set aside the conditions.
[30] After the September Order, both the
[31] In addition, on November 7, 2008, GEA moved for
various relief, including an order continuing and varying the Norwich Order to permit the discovery of
Graham on the issue of the failed 2004 SPA transaction between GEA and FNG. In this variation motion, GEA relied on the
same grounds in support of the
[T]he information provided, and the documents and transcripts generated in this proceeding will enable GEA to assess its legal remedies against FNG and/or its principals or employees and initiate proceedings as against them.
[32] The parties’ duelling motions were heard
together by Cumming J. By order dated
December 9, 2008, he dismissed the motions brought by Ventra, Graham and FNG
and granted GEA’s motion to vary the
[33] In his reasons, the motions judge expressed the view that, based on the evidential record, “one of two alternative possibilities must logically be the reality”:
[27] The first possibility is that [Ventra] was in fact a wholly-owned subsidiary of FNG at the time of the SPA but later removed from FNG after the abortive closing through a restructuring by January, 2008 when GEA learned that FNG would not satisfy the costs award. If this is true then GEA may have a cause of action against FNG, [Ventra] and [Khan] for a fraudulent conveyance to defeat GEA as a contingent creditor.
…
[29] The second possibility is that [Khan] and FNG misled GEA through intentional misrepresentations (as to [Ventra] being a subsidiary of FNG) into entering into the SPA in May 2, 2004, and that [Ventra] was a mere sister or affiliate corporation to FNG by that point in time, both being indirectly owned by [Khan]. Perhaps [Khan] caused FNG to transfer the shares of [Ventra] to a third party at some point after FNG acquired [Ventra] but prior to making the Indicative Offer to GEA. If this is the situation then the evidence suggests [Khan] and FNG may have committed a fraud against GEA through the misrepresentations made to induce GEA to enter into the SPA.
[34] The motions judge continued: “With either possibility, the evidence suggests a possible fraud on the part of [Khan], indirectly the owner of both FNG and [Ventra], against GEA” (at para. 30).
[35] With respect to the need for a
[35] The
information sought through the
….
[38] The evidentiary record suggests that third parties (i.e. parties beyond FNG and Mr. Khan), being Mr. Graham and [Ventra] may be fraudulently involved in the transfer of assets from FNG or that Mr. Graham was a participant in fraudulent misrepresentations made to GEA.
[39] [Ventra]
and Mr. Graham are the only practicable source of information available to GEA
in order to investigate and determine its legal remedies. Mr. Graham is an officer and legal counsel of
[Ventra]. He has said he is the trustee
owner of the shares of the corporation that indirectly controls [Ventra]. The record indicates Mr. Graham has an
intimate knowledge of the history of [Ventra] and its relationship to FNG. [Ventra] and Mr. Graham are residents of
…
[41] The
evidentiary record establishes that GEA quite possibly has suffered a loss
because of the unlawful actions of one or more of FNG, Mr. Khan, Mr. Graham and
[Ventra]. The objective of a
[36] The following two key paragraphs are contained in the December Order:
3. The Respondents, Ventra and Graham are hereby required to forthwith disclose and produce to the Applicant [GEA] all documents relating to: (i) any and all conveyances, transfers or transactions whereby the interest of FNG in Ventra was transferred to other persons or entities, and/or the payment of any dividends relating to Ventra by FNG (the “Conveyances”), (ii) the failed transaction between the Applicant [GEA] and FNG in 2004 (the “Transaction”), insofar as they relate to Ventra and its involvement therein, including the statements made by FNG about its assets and financial condition in the possession of Ventra or Graham, (iii) the financial statements of FNG from 2001, and (iv) the ownership and/or control of Ventra from August 2001 to date.
4. The Respondent, Graham, is hereby required to attend an examination by the Applicant [GEA] to answer questions with respect to: (i) the Conveyances, (ii) the Transaction, insofar as they relate to Ventra and its involvement therein, including the statements made by FNG about its assets and financial condition, (iii) the financial statements of FNG from 2001, and (iv) the ownership and/or control of Ventra from August 2001 to date.
[37] In separate appeals, FNG and Ventra and Graham
(collectively, the “appellants”) appeal from the December Order. They seek to set aside the
[38] Pending the determination of the appeals, the
[39] As framed by the appellants, there are five issues on appeal:
(1) What is the appropriate standard of review on
appeal from a
(2) Did the motions judge misapprehend and misapply
the test for a
(i) by failing to conclude that the information sought by GEA is not necessary to enable it to plead its case;
(ii) by holding that the interests of justice favour the obtaining of the disclosure sought; and
(iii) by upholding the
(3) Did GEA meet the established requirements for
entitlement to a
(4) Should conditions 1(b) and (c) of the September Order be set aside?
(5) If the
[40] I begin with consideration of the origins and
nature of
[41] The remedy of pre-action discovery derives from the ancient bill of discovery in equity. Contemporary consideration of this type of equitable relief began with the 1974 decision of the House of Lords in Norwich Pharmacal, a case of suspected patent infringement. Norwich Pharmacal holds that, in certain circumstances, an action for discovery may be allowed against an “involved” third party who has information that the claimant alleges would allow it to identify a wrongdoer, so as to enable the claimant to bring an action against the wrongdoer where the claimant would otherwise not be able to do so. In a passage frequently quoted in subsequent authorities, Lord Reid described the basic principle at p. 175:
[I]f through no fault of his own a person gets mixed up in the tortious acts of others so as to facilitate their wrong-doing he may incur no personal liability but he comes under a duty to assist the person who has been wronged by giving him full information and disclosing the identity of the wrongdoers. I do not think that it matters whether he became so mixed up by voluntary action on his part or because it was his duty to do what he did. It may be that if this causes him expense the person seeking the information ought to reimburse him. But justice requires that he should co-operate in righting the wrong if he unwittingly facilitated its perpetration.
[42] In his concurring speech in Norwich Pharmacal at p. 199, Lord Cross of Chelsea rejected the suggestion that the recognition of an action for discovery to permit disclosure of the names and addresses of alleged wrongdoers would open the door to meritless “fishing requests” by prospective plaintiffs who sought to collect evidence or information from persons who had no relevant connection with the person to be sued or the events at issue. In so doing, he also identified the following factors as relevant to the determination of whether pre-action discovery of a third party should be allowed in the exercise of the court’s discretion:
(i) the strength of the applicant’s case against the unknown alleged wrongdoer;
(ii) the relationship between the alleged wrongdoer and the respondent (the person from whom discovery is sought);
(iii) whether the information could be obtained from another source; and
(iv) whether the provision of the information “would put the respondent to trouble which could not be compensated by the payment of all expenses by the applicant”.
See also, to substantially the same effect, the speech of Lord Kilbrandon in Norwich Pharmacal, at p. 205.
[43] In Norwich Pharmacal, pre-action discovery was sought for a narrow purpose – to identify suspected wrongdoers where it was known that a wrong had occurred, in order to permit the injured parties to sue for redress. To achieve this focused objective, discovery was allowed against an “innocent” third party against whom the appellants had no direct cause of action.
[44] However, following Norwich Pharmacal, the reach of the equitable action for discovery
in
[45] Moreover, in Ashworth
Hospital Authority v. MGN Ltd., [2002] 4 All E.R. 193 (H.L.), it was held
at para. 44 that the “
New situations are inevitably going to arise where it will be appropriate for the jurisdiction to be exercised where it has not been exercised previously. The limits which applied to its use in its infancy should not be allowed to stultify its use now that it has become a valuable and mature remedy.
[46] The availability of pre-action discovery has
also been codified in the applicable rules of court in
[47] In contrast, as in most provinces in
[48] In Glaxo Wellcome plc v. Minister of National Revenue, [1998] 4 F.C. 439 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1998] S.C.C.A. No. 422, on facts similar to those in Norwich Pharmacal, a pharmaceutical patent holder applied to the Minister of National Revenue under the Customs Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1, (2nd Supp.) for disclosure of the names of various drug importers who were said to have infringed the applicant’s intellectual property rights. As in Norwich Pharmacal, disclosure of the requested information was denied on the ground of confidentiality. The drug company then applied to the Federal Court of Canada for judicial review of that denial and for an order permitting it to examine the Minister on discovery to obtain the importers’ identities. Both applications were dismissed. On appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal, the appeal from the dismissal of the judicial review application was dismissed but the appeal from the dismissal of the application for an equitable bill of discovery was allowed.
[49] Following a detailed review of the decision in Norwich Pharmacal, Stone J.A. held at p. 461 that there are two threshold requirements for obtaining the discretionary remedy of an equitable bill of discovery: (i) the applicant must have a bona fide claim against the alleged wrongdoers; and (ii) the applicant must share some sort of relationship with the respondents. Justice Stone explained that the first requirement is intended to ensure “that actions for a bill of discovery are not brought frivolously or without any justification”, while the second requirement reflects the principle that “a bill of discovery may not be issued against a mere witness or disinterested bystander to the alleged misconduct”. Justice Stone then identified two additional requirements for granting a bill of discovery: (iii) the person from whom discovery is sought must be the only practicable source of information available to the applicant; and (iv) the public interests both in favour and against disclosure must be taken into account.
[50] A similar approach to
(i) where the information sought is necessary to identify wrongdoers;
(ii) to find and preserve evidence that may substantiate or support an action against either known or unknown wrongdoers, or even determine whether an action exists; and
(iii) to trace and preserve assets.
[51] Justice Mason then offered the following
formulation of the test for a
The court will consider the following factors on an
application for
(i) Whether the applicant has provided evidence sufficient to raise a valid, bona fide or reasonable claim;
(ii) Whether the applicant has established a relationship with the third party from whom the information is sought such that it establishes that the third party is somehow involved in the acts complained of;
(iii) Whether the third party is the only practicable source of the information available;
(iv) Whether the third party can be indemnified for costs to which the third party may be exposed because of the disclosure, some [authorities] refer to the associated expenses of complying with the orders, while others speak of damages; and
(v) Whether the interests of justice favour the obtaining of the disclosure.
[52] In
[53] The holding in Straka that the equitable remedy of a bill of discovery is
preserved in Ontario law and that it operates in concert with the Rules of Civil Procedure was reaffirmed
by this court in Meuwissen (Litigation
Guardian of) v. Strathroy Middlesex General Hospital (2006), 40 C.P.C. (6th) 6,
at paras. 3-4 and 9. The remedy was also
recently considered in Isofoton S.A. v.
Toronto Dominion Bank (2007), 85 O.R. (3d) 780 (Sup.
[54] Thus, many of the general principles applicable
in
[55] Against this brief jurisprudential backdrop, I turn to the issues on these appeals.
[56] The first issue in contention concerns the
standard of review applicable on appeal from the motions judge’s December Order. FNG, supported by Ventra and Graham on
slightly different grounds, argues that the motions judge erred in his
appreciation and application of the test for a
[57] In contrast, GEA maintains that as these appeals involve appellate scrutiny of a discretionary and equitable order, and as the December Order involved the application of a legal standard to a set of facts, the operative standard of review is palpable and over-riding error. GEA contends that the motions judge’s decision is unassailable on this standard. Alternatively, GEA asserts that if the applicable standard of review is that of correctness, the motions judge’s decision is correct.
[58] The recent decision of the Alberta Court of
Appeal in B. (A.) v. D. (C.) (2008),
429 A.R. 89 is instructive on this issue. In B.(A.), on appeal from an ex parte decision of a chambers judge denying
a
Orders involving the exercise of judicial
discretion, such as whether the interests of justice warrant the granting of a
[59] In my view, these observations accurately reflect the principles of appellate review articulated by LeBel J., writing for the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada, in British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v. Okanagan Indian Band, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 371, at para. 43:
As I observed in R. v. Regan, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 297, 2002 SCC 12, however, discretionary decisions are not completely insulated from review (para. 118). An appellate court may and should intervene where it finds that the trial judge has misdirected himself as to the applicable law or made a palpable error in his assessment of the facts. As this Court held in Pelech v. Pelech, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 801, at pp. 814-15, the criteria for the exercise of a judicial discretion are legal criteria, and their definition as well as a failure to apply them or a misapplication of them raise questions of law which are subject to appellate review. [Emphasis added.]
[60] I conclude that on the main ground of appeal
raised by the appellants, namely, the issue whether the motions judge
misapprehended and misapplied the test for a
[61] I make the following preliminary observations.
[62] First, the appellants accept that equitable
relief in the nature of a
[63] The appellants argue, however, that: (i) the test for a Norwich order requires consideration of whether the discovery sought is “necessary” for the applicant to plead – a requirement that the appellants say is a matter of first impression for this court; (ii) a Norwich order is neither appropriate nor necessary in this case since GEA has more than enough information in its possession to commence proceedings and plead its case without Norwich discovery; and (iii) in the alternative, the Norwich Order is overly broad and open-ended, and should be subject to restrictions.
[64] Second, FNG’s position regarding the motions
judge’s approach to the test for a
[65] Before the motions judge, the appellants argued
that GEA had failed to demonstrate a bona
fide claim sufficient to ground
[66] In support of this contention and while our
decision on these appeals was under reserve, the appellants moved for leave to
introduce fresh evidence of civil proceedings commenced on April 30, 2009 by
GEA against FNG and Khan in Illinois. The appellants assert that this evidence conclusively establishes that
the information sought by GEA under the
[67] GEA resists the appellants’ fresh evidence motion, arguing that:
(i) the fresh evidence is not directed at any of the issues that were before the motions judge and, therefore, that it could not reasonably be expected to have affected the outcome of the proceedings before the motions judge;
(ii) the fresh evidence is not conclusive of any issue on these appeals; and
(iii) the interests of justice do not favour the admission of the fresh evidence.
[68] We directed that the fresh evidence motion proceed on the basis of written submissions. I will refer to those submissions in the context of the issues on appeal to which they relate.
[69] Finally, I note a second contrast in the
positions of FNG and Ventra and Graham on appeal. Ventra and Graham argue that the
[70] In my view, it is sufficient for the disposition
of these appeals to consider only the appellants’ claim that the motions judge
erred by misapprehending and misapplying the test for a
[71] The motions judge recognized that a
[72] The motions judge also addressed the rationale
for a
The fundamental principle underlying such an Order is that the third party against whom the order is sought has an equitable duty to assist the applicant in pursuing its rights…The remedy has been extended in Canada such as to allow the Court to grant an order compelling the disclosure of all information vital to the plaintiff’s ability to commence an action from any party involved in the wrongful conduct of the defendant or potential defendant. [Citations omitted.]
[73] The motions judge then turned to the test for a
[74] FNG argues that the list of factors identified
by the motions judge is incomplete and incorrect since it fails to include the requirement
of necessity. This omission, FNG submits,
fatally taints the motions judge’s analysis of whether
[75] I agree with FNG that an applicant for a
[76] The notion of the requirement of a showing of
necessity for a
The principle which underlies the jurisdiction which the law gives to the courts of equity in cases of this nature, is that where discovery is absolutely necessary in order to enable a party to proceed with a bona fide claim, it is the duty of the court to assist with the administration of justice by granting an order for discovery, unless some well-founded objection exists against the exercise of such jurisdiction. [Emphasis added.]
[77] Both Norwich
Pharmacal and post-Norwich Pharmacal jurisprudence in
[T]his is a discretionary jurisdiction which enables the court to be astute to avoid a third party who has become involved innocently in wrongdoing by another from being subjected to a requirement to give disclosure unless this is established to be a necessary and proportionate response in all the circumstances. [Citations omitted; emphasis added.]
[78] Lord Woolf C.J. continued at para. 57: “The Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction is an exceptional one and one which is only exercised by the courts when they are satisfied that it is necessary that it should be exercised” (emphasis added).
[79] Subsequently, in Mitsui & Co. Ltd. v. Nexen Petroleum UK Ltd., [2005] 3 All E.R.
511 (Ch D) at para. 21, Lightman J. described the pre-conditions to a
The necessity required to justify exercise of this intrusive jurisdiction is a necessity arising from the absence of any other practicable means of obtaining the essential infor-mation.
[80] Similarly, in Nikitin v. Richard Butler LLP, [2007] EWHC 173 (Q.B.), Langley J. said at paras. 24 and 32:
The questions are whether such information is vital to a decision to sue or an ability to plead and whether or not, even if it is, it can be obtained from other sources. The purpose of an order is to enable an Applicant to take action which could not otherwise effectively be taken.
….
[T]he applicants have wholly failed to establish the relevant necessity to justify the relief they seek. [Emphasis added.]
[81] Mitsui and Nikitin suggest that the “Norwich jurisdiction” may be exercised
where the claimant requires disclosure of “crucial” or “vital” information in
order to be able to bring its claim or where the claimant “requires a missing
piece of the jigsaw”. In light,
particularly, of the pre-action discovery provisions of the rules of court in
[82] This restrictive approach to the availability of a Norwich order was subsequently rejected in R. v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, [2008] EWHC 2048 (Admin.). In that case, the court stated at para. 94:
The intrusion into the business of others which the exercise of the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction obviously entails means that a court should not, as Lord Woolf in Ashworth made clear, require such information to be provided unless it is necessary. But in our view, there is nothing in any authority which justifies a more stringent requirement than necessity by elevating the test to the information being a missing piece of the jigsaw or to it being a remedy of last resort. [Emphasis added.]
[83] The requirement of necessity also finds some
support in the applicable Canadian authorities. In B.(A.), supra, at para. 16,
the Alberta Court of Appeal referred to Ashworth as an example of a case in which “[t]he investigative capacity of
[84] On my reading of the authorities in Canada and
England, it is unclear whether the requirement of a showing of necessity for
pre-action discovery properly forms part of the court’s inquiry as to whether
the third party from whom discovery is sought is the only practicable source of
the information available (as held in Mitsui at para. 24) or as to whether the interests of justice favour disclosure or
non-disclosure (as argued by FNG before this court). However, there is no suggestion in the
established jurisprudence that it is a stand-alone requirement for the granting
of a
[85] In my opinion, the precise placement of the
necessity requirement in the inventory of factors to be considered on a
[86] FNG relies especially on this court’s decision
in Meuwissen to submit that the
requirement of necessity means that the information sought by an applicant for
a
[87] In my view, FNG’s suggested interpretation of
the necessity requirement casts the purpose of
[88] Recall that in Norwich Pharmacal, the appellants knew that their patent had been infringed. But in P. v. T., the applicant obtained an order for pre-action discovery in circumstances where he was uncertain whether a tort had been committed so as to give rise to a cause of action. Similarly, in Straka, the appellant did not know whether he had a cause of action against the respondents. The appellant therefore sought to determine what facts could have given rise to the wrongdoing alleged “so that he might take steps to clear his name through legal proceedings if this should prove necessary” (at para. 52) (emphasis added). And in Isofoton, pre-action discovery was ordered where its purposes included the obtaining of information required to determine whether a legal proceeding was appropriate (see, in particular, paras. 47, 50 and 59). See also Leahy (Q.B.), at para. 106.
[89] It is true that on the facts in Meuwissen, this court held that a Norwich order was inappropriate as the
information in the possession of the respondents at the time of the application
was sufficient to permit them to formulate and plead their case (at para.
9). That does not mean, however, that
where information is required to determine the preliminary question of whether a
cause of action even exists,
[90] The purpose of an action for discovery “is to enable justice to be done”: Straka at para. 36. It would defeat the object of an action for discovery if, other prerequisites to obtaining such relief having been satisfied, a Norwich order is automatically precluded because the applicant seeks to justify the order on grounds other than necessity to plead.
[91] On the contrary, in my opinion, the limits of
the necessity criterion for a
[92] Thus, the critical issue in this case is whether
the
[93] The motions judge concluded that a
The information sought through the
[94] In the first ground cited by him, the motions
judge appears to have focused on the issue whether the information sought was
required by GEA to investigate whether it had a cause of action against Ventra. But this suggested objective of a
[95] Neither in its original notice of application
for the
[96] GEA’s notice of application instead focused on
alleged fraudulent conveyances by FNG and the investigation of “FNG’s
fraud”. GEA claimed that a
[97] Yet nowhere in his reasons does the motions
judge assess whether a
[98] In my opinion, a
[99] This information was sufficient to support GEA’s assertion that a potential fraud or frauds had been perpetrated on it by FNG and/or Khan. While full particulars of the mechanics of the potential fraud or frauds were unknown to GEA, the nature, timing and apparent purpose of the frauds were known, as was the identity of the suspected wrongdoer or wrongdoers.
[100] In
these circumstances, GEA was positioned to formulate a pleading against FNG (and/or
Khan) if it elected to do so. If an action
had been commenced, discovery of the circumstances of the alleged frauds would
be available to GEA under the normal discovery practice mandated by the Rules of Civil Procedure. Further, once an action was initiated, information
from Ventra and Graham regarding the asserted frauds would be available to GEA
under the rules in
[101] I note that in his June 20, 2008 affidavit, Kunz-Aue acknowledged that “substantial evidence” existed concerning FNG’s alleged fraudulent conveyances. Further, Khan’s admissions under oath, Graham’s alleged statements to Heckel and von Oppen in March 2007, and Weimann’s alleged comments in January 2008, provided a foundation for GEA’s assertion of fraudulent misrepresentations.
[102] I
also agree with the appellants that the fresh evidence regarding the civil proceedings
commenced by GEA in
[103] In
its complaint filed in the
This case involves alternative theories of liability…At this time, GEA does not know which of these two theories of liability will prove to be the correct theory [fraudulent conveyances or fraudulent misrepresentations], but both theories are actionable and are supported by representations made and/or conduct undertaken by or on behalf of Khan and FNG. [Emphasis added.]
These allegations mirror those advanced by GEA against FNG and
Khan in
[104] I
reiterate that pre-action discovery is rare and extraordinary discretionary
relief. It is not intended nor should it
be permitted to serve as a substitute for the normal discovery regime mandated
by the Rules of Civil Procedure. As noted by the Alberta Court of Appeal in B.(A.), supra, at para. 16: “[a]
[105] I
recognize that GEA did not seek pre-action discovery merely to plead. GEA’s counsel responsibly acknowledged during
oral argument that GEA was “not very far away” from being able to plead one or
more causes of action arising from FNG’s alleged wrongdoing. In fact, this understates the situation. As in Meuwissen,
GEA has ample information in hand to formulate and plead its case.
[106] I
also do not accept GEA’s claim that it should be afforded pre-action discovery
to ascertain whether FNG or its agents engaged in a third, as yet unknown
fraud. The suggestion of a third cause
of action in fraud is speculative. To
grant a
[107] Nor
do I agree that the other grounds identified by the motions judge warrant a
[108] This is not a case, like Norwich Pharmacal, where such relief is necessary to identify the suspected wrongdoer. GEA’s claims arise from FNG’s breach of the SPA and its alleged subsequent actions to defeat GEA’s legitimate interests as an anticipated creditor in the Arbitration and as a creditor in respect of the outstanding costs award made in GEA’s favour by the German appellate court. The identity of the principal alleged wrongdoer – FNG – is known. An action against it and its agents is already available to GEA.
[109] Similarly,
I am not persuaded that a
[110] Nor, in my opinion, is this a tracing case. On the record before this court and the motions judge, GEA has no existing proprietary or personal claim or other beneficial entitlement to assets formerly or at present in the possession of any of the appellants or, indeed, Khan.[4] This case is therefore factually distinguishable from the tracing cases relied on by GEA. At most, GEA is an unpaid and unsecured creditor of FNG in respect of its outstanding costs award and a prospective unsecured creditor of FNG in relation to unquantified damages to be awarded in phase two of the Arbitration.
[111] GEA did not argue before this court that pre-action discovery is required in this case in aid of a Mareva injunction or an Anton Piller order.[5] Moreover, in contrast to other cases in which Norwich orders have been sought or obtained, in this case the alleged wrongdoer (FNG) eventually received notice of the Norwich application and participated in the Norwich proceeding. Further, Ventra and Graham are closely connected both to FNG and the wrongdoings alleged by GEA. In that important respect, they are “involved” but scarcely “innocent” third parties.
[112] I
therefore conclude that GEA failed to establish that
[113] It remains to consider the appellants’ challenge to the impugned conditions of the September Order. For three reasons, I would reject that challenge.
[114] First, on the record before this court, Ventra and Graham did not appeal the September Order, although they sought relief concerning it on these appeals.
[115] Second, the September Order was granted on the consent of GEA. The reasons of C. Campbell J. indicate that the conditions imposed were suggested by GEA in its factum on the appellants’ motions. Thus, the relief obtained was based on a compromise by GEA that accrued to the direct benefit of Ventra and Graham and, by virtue of the disclosure authorized by the September Order, ultimately to FNG’s benefit as well. Fairness therefore dictates that the appellants should not lightly be permitted to disturb the foundation on which GEA’s consent was forthcoming.
[116] Finally,
only Ventra and Graham attack the condition in paragraph 1(b) of the September Order,
while all the appellants challenge the immunity from suit condition contained in
paragraph 1(c). I see nothing
objectionable in the former condition. In respect of the latter condition, the record reveals that FNG has a
history of commencing proceedings in relation to the alleged violation of the
confidentiality of the Arbitration. The immunity
from suit provision of the September Order was designed to foreclose a similar
lawsuit by FNG arising from the disclosure in the
[117] I
would therefore allow the appeals in part by setting aside the
RELEASED:
[1] Unlike the situation in
[2] The decision in Leahy (Q.B.), which preceded Straka by some months, does not appear to have been drawn to the court’s attention in Straka.
[3] This approach to the meaning of “necessity” for
[4] For a discussion of the circumstances in which the right to trace in equity arises, see the seminal case of Re Diplock; Diplock v. Wintle, [1948] Ch. 465 (C.A.). See also Bankers Trust, supra.
[5] See Mareva Campania Naviera S.A. v.
International Bulkcarriers