Date: 2012-02-14 Master MacLeod. | Link

The plaintiff was hired to design and plan the renovation of a historic home which the defendants had purchased in Ottawa.  Apparently the renovation took much longer than anticipated and according to the defendants it cost three times what they had been led to believe.  Accordingly when the plaintiff sued the defendants for a $40,000.00 outstanding fee he was met with a counterclaim for $750,000.00. Starting at para 37, the court reviews the procedural history and the discovery planning process. The plaintiff had proposed a discovery plan, but the defendant had refused to formally sign off pending agreement on an electronic format for exchanging documents. The court points out that discovery plans can be modified as more information is received - "(t)he obligation to engage in discovery planning includes an obligation to confer at the outset and to continue to collaborate on an ongoing basis in order that the plan may be adjusted as necessary." The court refers to The Sedona Canada Commentary on Cost Containment.