Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Donec sollicitudin dui in metus scelerisque aliquet. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae;

Silvercreek II Ltd. v. Royal Bank of Canada 2014 ONSC 6751 (CanLII)

  • November 20, 2015

Date: 2014-11-20. Docket: CV-11-9538-00CL. Master D.E. Short. | Link
In the context of a complex, case-managed action on the Commercial list the plaintiff hedge fund conducted extensive examinations for discovery and endeavored to obtain answers to undertakings and address matters where refusal were given.

Warman v. National Post Company 2015 ONSC 267 (CanLII)

  • January 26, 2015

Date: 2015-01-26 Docket: 08-CV-00352197SR | Link
Claim in defamation for various internet postings published by the Defendants. In March 2010, the Defendants brought a motion seeking the examination of the Plaintiff’s laptop by an independent expert.

NEW - Midland Resources Holding Limited v. Shtaif, 2010 ONSC 3772 (CanLII).

  • June 28, 2010

Date: 2010-06-28. Docket: 08-CL-7446. Master R.A. Muir | Link
Motions to require the defendant and the plaintiff answer undertakings and questions refused and taken under advisement on their respective examinations for discovery. The action relates to claims of conspiracy, fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and other related causes of action with respect to business ventures for the purchase and development of oil and gas properties. In applying the test for relevance, the Master was mindful of the principle of proportionality and the objective that discovery be conducted with regard to cost and efficiency. The defendants sought access to all books and records of a company under the control of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs agreed that the documents are relevant, but were only prepared to make a “reasonable and proportionate” degree of disclosure. They suggested that disclosure and access be limited to records relating to items or transactions valued at over US$5,000. The defendants were prepared to agree to a materiality threshold of US$1,000. The Master found that “a party who seeks to limit the production of relevant documents on the basis of proportionality must put forward at least some evidence addressing the Rule 29.2.03 factors”. The plaintiff did not put forward this evidence. Further, this action involves at least tens of millions of dollars and there has already been extensive oral and documentary discovery. The additional production of these documents is proportional to the proceedings, thus the plaintiff was ordered to produce the information and documentation for items or transactions valued at over US$1,000.00.

NEW - Abrams v. Abrams, 2010 ONSC 2703 (CanLII).

  • May 10, 2010

Date: 2010-05-10. D.M. Brown J. | Link
Applicant challenged judge’s case management endorsement. Applicant’s position is that judges who hear applications and motions on the Toronto Region Estates List do not have the jurisdiction to manage litigation on the list. The court found that “[a] judge engaged in case -- or litigation -- management also possesses the inherent powers to give directions regarding the mode of giving evidence-in-chief and the length of the oral examination of any witness at trial. Such powers are a necessary incident to the judge's ability to manage the case in a proportionate manner.”

NEW - BCE Inc. v. Ontario (Superintendent Financial Services), 2012 ONFST 25 (CanLII).

  • November 01, 2012

Date: 2012-11-01. Docket: P0456-2011-2. | Link 
Motion for an estoppel issue to be added to the issues to be determined at the hearing, and production of additional documents pertaining to the estoppel issue. SCI sought all documents, including committee and board updates, that relate to the potential transfer of Ontario surplus from BCE to the SCI plan, Mr. Lavigne’s file and documents relating to the discussions he had with Mr. Béliveau in 2005, and all documents relating to BCE’s subsequent decision to limit the surplus transfer to Québec members only. The tribunal permitted the estoppel issue to be added and made an additional production order that was more limited than the one sought by the SCI. The tribunal limited the production order to documents which are arguably relevant to the estoppel issue and whether there was detrimental reliance in the course of a very specific discussion at a meeting between Mr. Béliveau and Mr. Lavigne. BCE was ordered to produce documents that show what transpired at that meeting.

NEW - Dell Chemists (1975) Ltd. v. Luciani et al, 2010 ONSC 7118 (CanLII).

  • December 21, 2010

Date: 2010-12-21. Docket: 07-33078. M. D. Parayeski J. | Link
Motion to determine the terms of a discovery plan. Plaintiff claims damages for breach of fiduciary duty by the defendants. The court heard an argument on proportionality with respect to documentary disclosure. The court found that “[i]n order to succeed on that basis, however, a party must present cogent evidence to show that the evidentiary value of the new information or documents being sought is eclipsed by the cost of eliciting it or them. That is not done simply by invoking the concept of proportionality in the abstract, as has been done here.” The documents which appear to be relevant upon the pleadings were ordered to be produced, while the documents of marginal or minimal relevance did not have to be produced.

NEW - Goldman Sachs & Co. v. Sessions, 2000 BCSC 67 (CanLII).

  • April 14, 2000

Date: 2000-01-14. Docket: C975892. Smith J. | Link
Several interlocutory motions, including a request for documents. The probative value of the evidence sought was outweighed by the competing factors of time, effort, and intrusion into the confidentiality of non-parties to the action. The court therefore declined to order production of these documents.

NEW - Hryniak v. Mauldin,,/em> [2014] 1 SCR 87, 2014 SCC 7 (CanLII).

  • January 23, 2014

Date: 2014-01-23. Docket: 34641. | Link
A group of investors gave Tropos Capital Inc. US$1.2 million for an investment opportunity. Robert Hryniak was the principal of the company Tropos. Gregory Peebles was a lawyer for Cassels Brock & Blackwell and acted for Hryniak and Tropos. A few months later, Tropos put over US$10 million into an offshore account and the money disappeared. Hryniak claims that he had a legitimate trading program and that Tropos’ funds were stolen.

NEW - Hudson v Aviation Technical Consultants (ATC), 2014 CanLII 17167 (ON SC).

  • March 04, 2014

Date: 2014-03-04. Docket: CV‑09‑37858800‑0000. Myers, J. | Link
Appeal from the order of a Master regarding document production. The parties to this appeal are defendants in lawsuits related to an airplane crash in which three people died. The appellants were the manufacturers of the failed engine that was identified as a cause of the accident. The Master ordered the appellants to produce documents concerning parts, counterweights, and accidents (other than those which relate to the lawsuit) because they are relevant to the products liability and duty to warn causes of action pleaded. The appellants argue that producing 39 years of documents for 15 parts and over 50 models offends the proportionality principle. Justice Myers dismissed the appeal: “[t]his is a significant case involving the loss of three lives with tens of millions of dollars in damages being claimed. Absent evidence from the appellants with the description of hardship sufficient to meet the subheadings of Rule 29.2 to counterbalance the relevancy and discretionary factors considered by the Master , I cannot see a basis to conclude the Master erred in law, principle, or appreciation of the facts to the standard of a palpable and overriding error. “