Hernandez v. Purcell

Hernandez v. Purcell

Costs denied because the disclosure of raw psychological testing data had not been conclusively settled, authorities varied, Rule 14.03 lacked prior judicial commentary, and the professionals and Board had legitimate concerns; accordingly it was appropriate that each party bear their own costs.

Citation
2013 NSSC 397
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Joanne Hernandez; Defendant/applicant: Danielle Lynn Purcell; Plaintiff/respondent: Christina Phyllis Carroll; Defendant/applicant: Parks and Armour Transport; Intervener: Board of Examiners in Psychology
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil (motions for Disclosure of Psychological Testing Data) / Costs Decision (post Motion)
Outcome
Each party to bear their own costs
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Raw Psychological Test Data, Implied Undertaking Rule, Costs, Expert Materials, Rule 14.03 Interpretation
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Evidence Professional Regulation (psychology) Disclosure of Raw Psychological Test Data Implied Undertaking Rule Costs Expert Materials Rule 14.03 Interpretation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joanne Hernandez

Plaintiff/respondent

Danielle Lynn Purcell

Defendant/applicant

Christina Phyllis Carroll

Plaintiff/respondent

Parks and Armour Transport

Defendant/applicant

Board of Examiners in Psychology

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Civil (motions for Disclosure of Psychological Testing Data) / Costs Decision (post Motion)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether disclosure of raw psychological testing data had been conclusively settled by prior authority
  2. 2 Whether successful applicants on the disclosure motions were entitled to costs
  3. 3 Whether the Board of Examiners and professionals acted unreasonably in resisting disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

Costs denied because the disclosure of raw psychological testing data had not been conclusively settled, authorities varied, Rule 14.03 lacked prior judicial commentary, and the professionals and Board had legitimate concerns; accordingly it was appropriate that each party bear their own costs.

Court Disposition

Each party to bear their own costs

Orders

  • All parties shall bear their own costs in relation to the motions.