MacGowan v. RBC Dominion Securities Inc.

MacGowan v. RBC Dominion Securities Inc.

The application for production was dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to show the other clients' RBCDS records had sufficient relevance or likelihood of leading to admissible evidence on the issue of supervision, and disclosure would unjustifiably expose non‑party personal financial information; confidentiality...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2008 NSSC 421
Parties
Plaintiffs: Bruce MacGowan and Susan MacGowan; Defendant (corporate): RBC Dominion Securities Inc.; Defendant (individual): Hugh Bagnell
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Action – Negligence, Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Breach of Contract Arising From Investment Account Management / Chambers Application for Production Under Rule 20 (civil Procedure Rules, 1972); Oral Dismissal With Subsequent Written Reasons
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Production/discovery, Relevance/semblance of Relevance, Supervision of Investment Advisors, Similar Fact Evidence, Implied Undertaking Rule, Confidential Financial Information
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Securities/investment Law Tort (negligence) Contract Privacy/confidentiality Administrative/regulatory Proceedings Production/discovery Relevance/semblance of Relevance +4 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bruce MacGowan and Susan MacGowan

Plaintiffs

RBC Dominion Securities Inc.

Defendant (corporate)

Hugh Bagnell

Defendant (individual)

Procedural Posture

Civil Action – Negligence, Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Breach of Contract Arising From Investment Account Management / Chambers Application for Production Under Rule 20 (civil Procedure Rules, 1972); Oral Dismissal With Subsequent Written Reasons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether RBCDS records relating to other clients of the advisor are sufficiently relevant to be ordered produced
  2. 2 Whether disclosure of non‑party personal financial information without notice is contrary to public interest and confidentiality protections
  3. 3 Whether the implied undertaking rule adequately protects confidential information in this context

Ratio Decidendi

The application for production was dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to show the other clients' RBCDS records had sufficient relevance or likelihood of leading to admissible evidence on the issue of supervision, and disclosure would unjustifiably expose non‑party personal financial information; confidentiality concerns, coupled with lack of compelling relevance, required denial of production.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for production of records relating to other clients denied
  • Costs awarded in favour of RBC Dominion Securities Inc. in the amount of 500 CAD