Judgment released: June 9, 2011 Link to Judgment
Generally, the bringing of a summary judgment motion does not suspend the obligation to serve an affidavit of documents. The moving party must disclose all relevant documents so that the opposing party has all relevant information and is in a position to put forward all its relevant evidence in order to defend the motion.
However, where the motion for summary judgment is brought to determine the application of a limitation period, the circumstances may dictate otherwise. Here, the issue on summary judgment was whether a limitation period for libel applies. The Court found it would cause hardship to the defendants to require all documentary evidence produced prior to arguing the motion for summary judgment. There would be unnecessary delay and expense caused to the moving party in a situation where the documents being sought are not relevant to the motion. Should the motion fail, the responding party would be in a position to receive the moving party’s affidavit of documents as they proceed on the road to a trial of the action. The Court deferred service of the moving party’s affidavit of documents, relying on the principle of proportionality and Rule 2.03, as well as the conduct of the parties since the action was commenced.