The applicant sought enforcement in Ontario of a commission issued by a New Jersey court requiring a non‑party witness to produce documents and attend for a deposition relating to corporate farm assets relevant to U.S. divorce proceedings.
The respondents resisted on the basis that the request was intrusive, unnecessary, and contrary to privacy interests.
Applying the criteria for enforcing foreign commissions, including relevance, necessity, specificity, and comity, the court held that most of the requested documentary production and questioning should be enforced.
However, several areas of questioning were refused or restricted as speculative or overly intrusive.
Enforcement was conditioned on confidentiality undertakings equivalent to Ontario’s deemed undertaking rule and limits were imposed on the scope, location, and timing of the deposition.
