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)

Paul v. Pizale, 2011 ONSC 3490 (S.C.J.) (Rule 1.04 – proportionality; Rule 31.06 – scope of examination)

Judgment released: June 8, 2011   Link to Judgment

In this appeal to a judge of the Superior Court, the Court used Rule 1.04(1.1) as an alternative ground for upholding a Master’s ruling that certain questions asked on discovery were not relevant.

Print Friendly
Paul v. Pizale, 2011 ONSC 3490 (S.C.J.) (Rule 1.04 – proportionality; Rule 31.06 – scope of examination)

Vieira v. Star Navigation Systems Group Ltd., 2010 ONSC 6891 (S.C.J.) (Rule 31.06 – scope of examination)

Judgment Released: December 16, 2010   Link to Judgment

In the context of discovery refusals, the questions must be relevant, proportional and pertain to the pleadings in the case.

Print Friendly
Vieira v. Star Navigation Systems Group Ltd., 2010 ONSC 6891 (S.C.J.) (Rule 31.06 – scope of examination)

Romspen Investment Corporation v. Woods, 2010 ONSC 30005 (Master) (Rule 31.06 – scope of examination)

Judgment Released: June 8, 2010   Link to Judgment

On a refusals motion under the new Rules, the degree of connection between the question asked and the matters in issue is now relevance, rather than “semblance of relevance”. In most instances, there is no significant difference between the two standards of disclosure.  Regardless of whether the test is relevance or semblance thereof, the approach comes down to this: subject to privilege, if the question asked could elicit a response that the trial judge could rely on to resolve a matter in issue before him, the test has been met – the question asked is relevant.

All of this, however, must be filtered through the lens of proportionality, such that what has been requested has to be considered within the context of the particular case, to ensure that it is not overly onerous when measured against what is at stake on a variety of levels. Thus, even if the response to the above question is “yes, the response could assist the trial judge in making a determination regarding a matter in issue,” a second question must be asked: “is there enough at stake, in terms of significance or money, to justify the time and expense of the disclosure sought?”

Print Friendly
Romspen Investment Corporation v. Woods, 2010 ONSC 30005 (Master) (Rule 31.06 – scope of examination)

Brand Name Marketing v. Rogers, 2010 ONSC 1159 (Master) (Rule 1.04 – proportionality, 31.06 – scope of examination)

Judgment Released: March 10, 2010  Link to Judgment

The Court concurred with Wood v. 156 Kingston Residences Corp., 2010 ONSC 1250 (Master), that where an examination for discovery took place under the old Rules, the old “semblance of relevance” test should apply on a refusals motion brought after January 1, 2010.  The Court noted that “equality of arms”, as a component of proportionality, and practicality dictate that the same discovery standard should apply to both parties.  The Court further noted that while the tests of the new Rules should apply as much as possible, a reopening of matters which occurred in the old Rules environment should not be invited.

Print Friendly
Brand Name Marketing v. Rogers, 2010 ONSC 1159 (Master) (Rule 1.04 – proportionality, 31.06 – scope of examination)

Noble v. York University Foundation, 2010 ONSC 399 (S.C.J.) (Rule 31.06 – scope of examination, relevance)

Judgment Released: February 17, 2010   Link to Judgment

In interpreting new Rule 31.06(1) on a refusals motion, the Court cited a passage from the Osborne Report reading in part that “the ‘semblance of relevance’ test ought to be replaced with a stricter test of ‘relevance.’  This step is needed to provide a clear signal to the profession that restraint should be exercised in the discovery process and…to ‘strengthen the objective that discovery be conducted with due regard to cost and efficiency.’ … This reform is not targeted at lawyers who make reasonable discovery requests, but rather at those who make excessive requests or otherwise abuse the discovery process.”  Here, the Court applied the ‘relevance’ test where the refusals took place in May 2008 but the motion was heard in January 2010.

Print Friendly
Noble v. York University Foundation, 2010 ONSC 399 (S.C.J.) (Rule 31.06 – scope of examination, relevance)