In a civil action alleging Canadian government complicity in torture by foreign authorities, the plaintiffs sought the imposition of a discovery plan mirroring one ordered in related proceedings.
The court accepted that the actions should proceed in parallel with the related litigation at the production and discovery stage.
However, the court declined to impose a “show cause” sanction requiring the Attorney General to justify why its statement of defence should not be struck if document production deadlines were missed.
The judge held that the volume of documents subject to national security privilege screening in the present action was substantially greater and that the Attorney General had demonstrated diligence and good faith in complying with disclosure obligations.
The discovery plan from the related actions was adopted with this modification.
