Two Applications were before the Court: one by the Defendants to sever the issue of share value from the remaining issues before the Court for the purposes of discovery, and another by the Plaintiffs for the production of certain documents.

In addressing whether the issue of share value should be severed, Gill J. reviewed the discretion provided to the Court by Rule 7.1(1), stating that the Court must be guided in exercising such discretion by the purpose and intention of the Rules as set out in Rule 1.2(1). As the issue of share value was found to be inextricably intertwined with other issues in the Action, Gill J. held that severing the issue would not be practical or useful and that, applying Rule 7.1(1), severance would not help to dispose of all or part of the Claims, substantially shorten the Trial or save expense. Gill J. further held that this conclusion was reinforced when the purpose and intention of the Rules, as set out in Rules 1.2(1), 1.2(2)(c) and 1.2(2)(d), was considered.

In addressing disclosure of documents, Gill J. indicated that the Plaintiff had requested disclosure of a number of financial records, which the Defendants objected to producing. Gill J. stated that the relevant Rules are Rules 5.1(1) and 5.2(1), and held that the principles outlined in Mustard v Brache, 2006 ABCA 265, in regard to old Rule 186.1, were still applicable, as was the approach outlined by the Court in Weatherill (Estate of) v Weatherill, 2003 ABQB 69. Gill J. held that the documents requested by the Plaintiffs appeared to be relevant and material and disclosure would be in accordance with the purposes outlined in Rule 5.1(1). With respect to the issue of confidentiality of the document production, Gill J. held that, taking into account the fact that a Consent Order was in place imposing the requirement of confidentiality, as well as the required confidentiality imposed by Rule 5.33(1), no further steps were required.