Background: Appellant, involved in family law proceedings against her husband, had a close relationship with his daughter from his previous marriage to respondent. The daughter informed Prandi that Salisbury received anonymous defamatory correspondence about Prandi. Initially considering this relevant to her family law case, Prandi sought the information through discovery but later applied for a Norwich Pharmacal order to identify the anonymous source for a defamation action.

Key Legal Issues:

• Norwich Pharmacal Order: Prandi sought to compel Salisbury to disclose information about the defamatory statements made by an anonymous third party for a defamation lawsuit.
• Procedural Irregularities:
  • The application had no connection to the existing family law proceeding.
  • Evidence used in the application potentially violated confidentiality rules as it was obtained during discovery in the family law case.

Court Findings:

• Jurisdiction and Procedure: The Court determined that a Norwich Pharmacal order is not a limited appeal order, meaning Prandi did not need leave to appeal.
• Use of Discovery Evidence: The Court expressed concerns that using discovery evidence from the family law case for the Norwich order might have breached confidentiality undertakings.

Outcome: Justice Groberman allowed the appeal to proceed without requiring leave, addressing procedural concerns for the panel hearing the appeal. No specific costs or awards were mentioned.

Conclusion: Appellant was permitted to proceed with her appeal against respondent regarding the refusal of a Norwich Pharmacal order, raising significant procedural issues about the use of discovery evidence and the connection of the application to the family law case.