NEW - Bard v Canadian Natural Resources, 2016 ABQB 267 (CanLII)

  • May 24, 2016

Date: 2016-05-24 Docket: 1001 12889. Nixon J. | Link
The plaintiffs requested an order compelling the defendants to produce a set of documents in their native format (Excel spreadsheets) although the defendant had already produced the files in TIFF format, in accordance with the discovery protocol agreed to in the litigation plan.

NEW - Northwest Mettech Corp. v. Metcon Services Ltd., 1996 CanLII 1056 (BC SC)

  • August 30, 1996

Date: 1996-08-30 Master Joyce. | Link 
At issue was whether the defendants were required to produce a computer hard drive. The court found that “the plaintiff is not entitled to production of the hard drive itself. They are entitled to production of only the relevant electronic data which is resident on that hard drive. As I understand it, a computer hard drive is simply a medium on which data is stored on a semi-permanent basis in the form of electronic impulses. It may be thought of as an electronic filing cabinet which contains electronic files, each of which in turn contains electronic documents. The defendants are obliged to list all relevant documents of whatever form (including electronic documents resident on computer hard drives). In my view they are not required to list the entire contents of nor are they required to produce their entire electronic filing cabinet any more than a party is required to list or to produce the complete contents of its steel filing cabinets which house documents which are in paper format. In my view the plaintiff has not shown any proper basis to require production of the actual hard drive. The plaintiff is entitled to know with certainty, however, that all relevant electronic data which is resident on the hard drive has been disclosed. Accordingly, I order that the defendant Mr. Delcea provide an affidavit verifying all of the files still resident on the computer hard drive which relate to the matters in issue.”

NEW - Reichmann v. Toronto Life Publishing Co., 66 OR (2d) 65 (HCJ), 1988 CanLII 4644 (ON SC).

  • November 02, 1988

Date: 1988-11-02 Anderson J. | Link
Defendant was ordered to produce the manuscript for her book concerning the plaintiffs, including any earlier versions of the manuscript. The defendant produced a copy of the manuscript produced from the disk, but did not produce the actual computer disk. The court found that the definition of “document” includes the disk and it therefore should be produced.

NEW -Cholakis v. Cholakis, 2000 CanLII 20735 (MB QB)

  • January 11, 2000

Date: 2000-01-11. Docket: CI 95-01-92830. Monnin J. | Link
The court was asked to determine whether the computer disk with the accounting program and the accounting data that has been, or will be produced to the plaintiff in paper form, is producible. The court found “the electronic information requested falls within the definition of a document under the Rules and contains relevant information that should be produced. If the defendants […] wish to provide the information in a format that does not reveal irrelevant information, then it is incumbent upon them to develop a mechanism by which that can be done. The interests of broad disclosure in a modern context require, in my view, the production of the information in the electronic format when it is available.”