Mask v. Silvercorp Metals Inc., 2014 ONSC 4161.
Mask, a shareholder, sought the required leave to bring an action for misrepresentation in secondary market disclosure under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S-5 ("OSA") against Silvercorp Metals Inc., which he intended to certify as a class action.
Silvercorp filed a number of affidavits opposing the leave motion. Prior to cross-examining Silvercorp's affiants, Mask brought a motion to inspect confidential documents alluded to but not included in those affidavits.
Justice Belobaba denied Mask's request to inspect. He held that a request to inspect "cannot be used as a fishing rod" to carry out discovery, and affirmed the court's discretion to deny such motions, especially before cross-examinations have been conducted in a leave motion. Justice Belobaba further added that any Request to Inspect Documents must be restricted in scope and content to a "manageable dimension". This "manageable dimension" should be congruent both with the principles of documentary productions, and the underlying policy objectives of the OSA leave provisions.
The decision is available here.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
