Fontaine v. The Attorney General of Canada

Fontaine v. The Attorney General of Canada

Apply a relevance standard confined to documents having some relation to the specific topics listed in the Consent Order; paragraph 2(h) is not limited to loans made by Bronstein & Company and therefore requires production of documents relating to third-party loans used in recruitment or otherwise tied to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2013 BCSC 1888
Parties
Plaintiffs: Larry Philip Fontaine et al; Defendants: The Attorney General of Canada et al
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Consent Order Review Under Implementation Orders Concerning IAP Practice / Request for Direction Hearing / Reasons for Judgment
Outcome
Request for Direction allowed in part and denied in part; Monitor granted targeted production pursuant to Consent Order; requests by Chief Adjudicator and Canada for full investigation, suspension and 20% holdback denied.
Legal Topics
Independent Assessment Process (iap) Review, Document Production/disclosure, Third Party Loans and Assignments, Retainer Agreements, Monitor Powers, Settlement Implementation, Privilege
Source Language
english
Class Actions Administrative Law Indigenous Law Trusts and Fiduciary Obligations Civil Procedure Regulatory Oversight Independent Assessment Process (iap) Review Document Production/disclosure +5 more

Source-derived case record

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Larry Philip Fontaine et al

Plaintiffs

The Attorney General of Canada et al

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Consent Order Review Under Implementation Orders Concerning IAP Practice / Request for Direction Hearing / Reasons for Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate relevance standard for a consensual limited review under a Consent Order?
  2. 2 Do documents relating to third-party loans fall within the scope of the Consent Order (paragraph 2(h))?
  3. 3 Are statements of account, retainer agreements and payment records required to be produced under the Consent Order?

Ratio Decidendi

Apply a relevance standard confined to documents having some relation to the specific topics listed in the Consent Order; paragraph 2(h) is not limited to loans made by Bronstein & Company and therefore requires production of documents relating to third-party loans used in recruitment or otherwise tied to Bronstein's IAP practice; produce retainer agreements where clients received loans; produce any statements of account that show deductions to Mr. Johnny or Other Persons; produce cheques and payment records evidencing payments to form-fillers or third parties; decline to convert the limited Consent Order review into a full investigation or to impose the Chief Adjudicator's and Canada's...

Court Disposition

Request for Direction allowed in part and denied in part; Monitor granted targeted production pursuant to Consent Order; requests by Chief Adjudicator and Canada for full investigation, suspension and 20% holdback denied.

Orders

  • Produce any statements of account rendered by Bronstein & Company to IAP clients that include deductions from settlement funds in favour of or in consideration of services provided by Ivon Johnny or any Other Person (paragraphs 2(b),(d),(f),(i)).
  • Produce retainer agreements for Bronstein & Company IAP clients who received loans from Bronstein & Company or third parties (paragraph 2(h)).