Date: 2003-11-04. Docket: S.H.No.149142. Moir J. | Link
Application for an order directing the defendants to answer interrogatories 2, 3 and 4. Plaintiff claims defendant insurers breached duties to defend and obligations to indemnify plaintiff with respect to claims of physical or sexual abuse by provincial employees. Interrogatories 2 and 3 deal with the insurers’ experience with multiple claimant situations of institutional abuse or other claims. Interrogatory 4 asks for the identity of anyone, except secretarial and clerical staff, who had responsibility in respect of the claim. Court: “Subject to two qualifications, the information sought must be logically and legally relevant. The first qualification recognizes that relevancy is not adequately assessed outside trial. At this stage, one must find a semblance of relevancy. Secondly, in addition to information that is relevant, we allow questions on discovery or through interrogatories which are reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Finally, there is a discretion to limit discovery where it would be just to do so, such as were the burdens that would be placed upon the party making answer clearly outweigh the interests of the party questioning.” Court finds interrogatories 2 and 3 to have no probative value, but orders the defendants to answer interrogatory 4.

Date: 2013-10-10. Docket: 11-CV-436151. Perell, J. | Link
Appeal of a Master’s decision to dismiss the defendant’s motion for production of the plaintiff’s personal computer and cell phone records. This is a wrongful dismissal action. The plaintiff was employed by the defendant and mostly worked from home. The plaintiff was also working as a part time real estate agent, but assured the defendant she was not doing so when she should have been working for the defendant. The defendant found 7 emails over a period of 18 months on the plaintiff’s office computer that show the plaintiff was conducting her real estate business during working hours. The defendant seeks copies of the plaintiff’s emails and cell phone bills between November 26, 2009 and June 30, 2011 that in any way relate to her real estate business. The Master dismissed the motion for three reasons: (1) the documents were of marginal relevance, (2) the request amounted to a fishing expedition for relevant documents, and (3) it would be unreasonable and disproportionate to order production. Regarding proportionality, the Master accepted the plaintiff’s evidence that she would be required to review thousands of emails and would have to spend hundreds of hours to retrieve, review and redact these messages. Justice Perell upheld the Master’s decision because he correctly applied the proportionality principle to deny the defendant’s motion.

Date: 2006-04-21. Docket: 05-5366. Macaulay J. | Link
Plaintiff applied for summary judgment and defendants counter claimed for a variety of remedies. After dismissing the counterclaim against two of the defendants and dismissing a portion of the summary judgment application, Justice Macaulay provided some pre-trial direction. Because he had already heard full submissions respecting the direction sought, he applied the proportionality principle to relax the requirement of an unnecessary case management conference. Justice Macaulay went on to make the document production and discovery orders that he otherwise would have made at the conference.

Date: 2014-05-22. Docket: CV-13-10382-00CL. D. M. Brown J. | Link
Commercial List Motion to continue and set aside a Mareva injunction. After disposing of the motion, Justice Brown provided an Appendix with standard case management directions for proceedings case-managed by him. The E-discovery section reads: “Counsel must explore creative ways to ensure that e-discovery costs remain proportionate to the complexity of the issues and the amount of money at stake in the case. Those creative ways can include (i) limiting the number of issues on which initial documentary discovery can be made, (ii) delaying e-mail documentary discovery until after core documents related to the limited issues have been exchanged, and then (iii) limiting the scope of e-mail documentary discovery.”