Siebert v. Spitters

Siebert v. Spitters

Where allegations of materially inconsistent testimony exist between proceedings, the implied undertaking and Rule 60 do not prevent production of non‑privileged records from prior matrimonial proceedings for use in the current action; defendant must list and produce all non‑privileged documents relating to the prior divorce, use of produced materials is limited to this action absent further order, and the plaintiff may challenge privilege claims.

Citation
2009 BCSC 1307
Parties
Plaintiff: Loretta Yvonne Siebert also known as Loretta Yvonne Spitters; Defendant: Cornelis Adrianos Antonius Spitters also known as Corry Spitters
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 September 2009
Procedural Posture
Matrimonial Action / Interlocutory Application for Disclosure
Outcome
Application granted in part: plaintiff permitted to inspect and copy non‑privileged records from defendant's prior matrimonial proceedings; defendant ordered to list and produce non‑privileged records; use restricted to this action; plaintiff given liberty to challenge privilege claims; costs awarded to plaintiff.
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Prior Court Records, Implied Undertaking Rule, Use of Prior Testimony for Impeachment, Access to Matrimonial Files, Privilege Claims
Source Language
English
Family Law Civil Procedure Evidence Privacy Law Disclosure of Prior Court Records Implied Undertaking Rule Use of Prior Testimony for Impeachment Access to Matrimonial Files +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Loretta Yvonne Siebert also known as Loretta Yvonne Spitters

Plaintiff

Cornelis Adrianos Antonius Spitters also known as Corry Spitters

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Matrimonial Action / Interlocutory Application for Disclosure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to inspect and obtain copies of records from the defendant's prior divorce proceedings and related solicitor files
  2. 2 Whether the implied undertaking rule and Rule 60 of the Rules of Court bar the use or disclosure of those materials in the current action
  3. 3 Whether contradictory testimony in prior proceedings permits use of prior discovery for impeachment

Ratio Decidendi

Where allegations of materially inconsistent testimony exist between proceedings, the implied undertaking and Rule 60 do not prevent production of non‑privileged records from prior matrimonial proceedings for use in the current action; defendant must list and produce all non‑privileged documents relating to the prior divorce, use of produced materials is limited to this action absent further order, and the plaintiff may challenge privilege claims.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part: plaintiff permitted to inspect and copy non‑privileged records from defendant's prior matrimonial proceedings; defendant ordered to list and produce non‑privileged records; use restricted to this action; plaintiff given liberty to challenge privilege claims; costs awarded to plaintiff.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's solicitor D.E. Burns permitted to inspect and obtain copies of records in Bridal v. Spitters and Spitters v. Spitters as specified in the application
  • Any implied undertaking of confidentiality applicable to information, records and documents produced in Bridal v. Spitters is modified to permit use of those materials in this action only unless otherwise ordered