How this Rule Works

This Rule addresses fax filing (R.82.11). It also allows for e-filing once the court has a system that can accommodate it.

Rule 82.20 gives the prothonotary broad powers to do things on consent, including amending a document, releasing an exhibit, extending or shortening a deadline in the Rules, or excusing strict compliance.

Rule 82.17 requires a party to notify the prothonotary when a proceeding settles or cannot be continued. Rule 82.18 allows a judge to dismiss a proceeding for want of prosecution. Rule 82.19 allows a designated judge to complete the work of a seized judge who cannot complete a trial or hearing.

Rule 82.22 limits a judge’s power to re-open proceedings or vary a final order to situations involving correction of errors, extension of a deadline in the order, where legislation permits variation, or where the text of the order applies it in circumstances that were not intended. The power to provide for something that should have been adjudicated upon is found in R.78.08. Rule 82.22(2) allows a party to move to reopen a case to present further evidence prior to the final order and restricts reopening after a final order to only those situations recognized in law.

Highlights of Changes

Proper format for style of cause and transcripts - Rule 82.09 deals with the proper format of headings. Rule 82.09(6) directs that a party’s title (e.g. plaintiff) not be changed for a counterclaim or crossclaim, or on a motion. Improper heading changes were of concern to the court. Rule 82 also deals with the proper format of discovery and commission transcripts (R.82.06(3)).

Protection of personal information - Rule 82.07 directs that documents filed with the court should not contain more personal information about another person than is necessary. In particular, it is sufficient to refer to a person’s community rather than his or her address. This restriction is consistent with the current emphasis on privacy and helps to minimize the risk of court documents being used to facilitate identity theft.

Filing of authorized documents - Rule 82.05 states that the prothonotary must accept for filing an authorized document that complies with the Rules. Non-compliant documents may be accepted conditionally or otherwise, and will be accepted even if non-compliant, where a substantive right is at stake, such as imminent expiry of a limitation period. Non-payment of fees is not listed as a reason for rejecting a document, except in the case of a conditionally accepted fax-filing (R.82.11(5)).

Documents not authorized to be filed - Rule 82.05(4) sets out a number of documents that are not authorized to be filed under the Rules and should not be filed with the court:

1. Formal offers to settle made under R.10;
2. Affidavit for disclosure of documents, or the documents disclosed under R.15 or R.16;
3. Documents disclosed under an order for production;
4. Interrogatories or responses under R.19;
5. Requests for admissions or responses under R.20;
6. Contingency fee agreements made under R.77;
7. Notices of Intended Action required by legislation to be delivered but not filed.

Rule 82.05(5) clarifies that unauthorized does not mean inadmissible.

Practice Tips

The direction in R.82.05(4) not to file certain documents is an alteration of previous practice with respect to lists of documents (but not the documents themselves) and contingency fee agreements. There is a practice of filing Notices of Intended Action with the court, but s.18 of the Proceedings against the Crown Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 360 and s.512 of the Municipal Government Act, S.N.S. 1998, c. 18 do not require filing with the court.