Date: 2014-04-23. Docket: CV-10-8845-00CL. Master D.E. Short. | Link
Motion for an order requiring a discovery plan, a more comprehensive Affidavit of Documents, and timely production of relevant documents.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.