1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar

D. Crupi & Sons Limited v. Travelers Guarantee Company of Canada et. al., 2011 ONSC 5874 (Master) (Rule 29.2.03 – proportionality in discovery; Rule 31.06 – scope of discovery)

Judgment Released: October 4, 2011  Link to Judgment

On a refusals motion, the Court referred to Rule 29.2.03 (proportionality in discovery) and the principles articulated by Justice Perell in Ontario v. Rothmans Inc., including that while under the former case law the Rules provided for questions “relating to any matter in issue” and the scope of discovery was defined with wide latitude, the amendment to the Rule from “relating to any matter in issue” to “relevant to any matter in issue,” suggests a modest narrowing of the scope of examinations for discovery.

Print Friendly
D. Crupi & Sons Limited v. Travelers Guarantee Company of Canada et. al., 2011 ONSC 5874 (Master) (Rule 29.2.03 – proportionality in discovery; Rule 31.06 – scope of discovery)

Blenkhorn v. Mazzawi, 2010 ONSC 699 (Rule 1.04 – proportionality, Rule 29.2.03 – proportionality in discovery)

Judgment Released:  January 28, 2010   Link to Judgment

The Court discontinued the claims of two named plaintiffs who were FLA claimants, and the defendants sought to examine the two discontinued plaintiffs as non-parties. The Court considered Rule 1.04(1.1) (proportionality) and Rule 29.2.03 (proportionality in discovery) and refused the request, as it would only add time and expense to the litigation, and the information sought was readily available from the two remaining plaintiffs.

Print Friendly
Blenkhorn v. Mazzawi, 2010 ONSC 699 (Rule 1.04 – proportionality, Rule 29.2.03 – proportionality in discovery)