2013 NBCA 10, 2013 NBCA 10

COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW BRUNSWICK 27-12-CA ALBERT JOHN GAY, KIMBERLEY ANN DOYLE and JAMES BLISS WILSON APPELLANTS ALBERT JOHN GAY, KIMBERLEY ANN DOYLE et JAMES BLISS WILSON APPELANTS - and - - et - REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY 7, a corporation incorporated under the laws of the Province of New Brunswick and DR. RAJGOPAL S. MENON RESPONDENTS RÉGIE RÉGIONALE DE LA SANTÉ 7, personne morale établie sous le régime des lois de la province du Nouveau-Brunswick, et D R RAJGOPAL S. MENON INTIMÉS Gay et al. v. Regional Health Authority 7 and Dr. Menon, 2013 NBCA 10 Gay et autres c.

Régie régionale de la santé 7 et D r Menon, 2013 NBCA 10 CORAM: The Honourable Chief Justice Drapeau The Honourable Justice Deschênes The Honourable Justice Robertson CORAM : L’honorable juge en chef Drapeau L’honorable juge Deschênes L’honorable juge Robertson Appeal from a decision of the Court of Queen’s Bench: March 8, 2012 Appel d’une décision de la Cour du Banc de la Reine : Le 8 mars 2012 History of Case: Historique de la cause : Decision under appeal: 2012 NBQB 88 Décision frappée d’appel : 2012 NBBR 88 Preliminary or incidental proceedings: [2012] N.B.J.

No. 202 Procédures préliminaires ou accessoires : [2012] A.N.-B. n o 202 Motion heard: January 16, 2013 Motion entendue : Le 16 janvier 2013

Decision: January 16, 2013 Décision : Le 16 janvier 2013 Counsel at hearing: For the appellants: Chesley F. Crosbie, Q.C. and Raymond F. Wagner, Q.C. For the respondent Regional Health Authority 7: David T. Hashey, Q.C. For the respondent Dr. Rajgopal S. Menon: Rodney J. Gillis, Q.C. and Mary Thomson Avocats à l’audience : Pour les appelants : Chesley F. Crosbie, c.r., et Raymond F. Wagner, c.r. Pour l’intimée Régie régionale de la santé 7 : David T. Hashey, c.r. Pour l’intimé D r Rajgopal S. Menon : Rodney J.

Gillis, c.r., et Mary Thomson THE COURT The appellants’ motion for leave to file a supplementary submission is allowed, on terms. Additionally, the hearing of the appeal is rescheduled, also on terms. The following is the judgment delivered by THE COURT [ 1 ] An Appellant’s Submission and two Respondent’s Submissions have been filed. The appellants apply for leave to file a “Reply Submission”, a document for which no explicit provision is found in the Rules of Court . However, this additional submission does address an important issue, namely the correct

interpretation of s. 31(1)(

c) of the Class Proceedings Act , S.N.B. 2011, c. 125. Section 31(1)(

c) prescribes a condition precedent to an aggregate damages award. The respondents oppose the motion. [ 2 ] In our view, the proposed “Reply Submission” is a welcome addition to the

interpretation- related material at our disposal. It is, nonetheless, deficient in that it fails to touch upon the interpretative effect of the French version of s. 31(1)(c). [ 3 ] As is well known, the Court may make any order that the case requires (see Rule 62.21(1)). We are satisfied the interests of justice would be served by allowing the motion and rescheduling the hearing of the appeal, on the terms set out below. [ 4 ] The record on appeal consists of 1,600 pages. The three written submissions currently on file

are lengthy. So are the 50 or so judicial precedents to which the submissions refer. The debates raise issues of first impression for the Court. All things considered, we conclude the appeal is simply not ready for a productive oral hearing this morning. In our view, the following directions complete the groundwork for a more focused and effective hearing. [ 5 ] The appellants will file and serve, on or before the close of business on February 8, 2013: (

a) A Further Submission, which addresses, in addition to the issues targeted by its “Reply Submission”, the effect of the French version of s. 31(1)(c); and (

b) A Book of Authorities. [ 6 ] Each respondent will file and serve, on or before the close of business on March 1, 2013: (

a) A Responding Submission in answer to the appellants’ Further Submission; (

b) A Book of Authorities; and (

c) A Book of Essential References. [ 7 ] Books of Authorities will include, under separate tabs, the headnote and only the salient parts of the reasons for decision. The respondents will be at liberty to file a joint Book of Authorities. [ 8 ] Books of Essential References will conform to Rule 62.20.1(3). Once again, the respondents may file a joint Book. [ 9 ] The hearing of the appeal is rescheduled to June 11-13, 2013. The hearing will begin on June 11 at 10:00 a.m. [ 10 ] Costs of the motion will be determined upon the disposition of the appeal. _____________________________________ J.

ERNEST DRAPEAU, CHIEF JUSTICE OF NEW BRUNSWICK ______________________________________ ALEXANDRE DESCHÊNES, J.A. ______________________________________ J.T. ROBERTSON, J.A.