2 total
Motion to compel answers on cross-examination dismissed; questions sought premature discovery and privileged settlement details.
The Town of Fort Frances, as plaintiff by counterclaim, brought a motion to compel the First Nations, Canada, and Ontario to answer questions refused during cross-examinations on affidavits filed for an upcoming summary judgment motion.
The refused questions sought the defendants' legal positions on historical documents and the disclosure of a 2018 Settlement Agreement between the First Nations, Canada, and Ontario.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the questions regarding historical documents were in the nature of discovery and beyond the proper scope of cross-examination on an affidavit.
The court also held that the 2018 Settlement Agreement was protected by settlement privilege and did not need to be disclosed, as it did not change the ongoing litigation landscape of the Town's counterclaim.
The court ordered the applicants to pre-pay $200,000 to fund the respondent's document review costs under foreign letters of request.
This endorsement addresses a dispute over document production costs in Ontario, arising from letters of request issued by a Florida court to compel the respondent, Mr. Smith, to produce documents and attend examination in aid of US litigation.
The applicants (Perlmutters and Mr. Peerenboom) sought to avoid or shift the costs of Mr. Smith's counsel reviewing documents for relevancy and privilege, arguing Mr. Smith was an interested party and not impecunious.
The court affirmed its prior ruling that Mr. Smith's counsel must conduct the review and that the applicants are liable for these costs on a full indemnity basis, ordering them to pre-pay $200,000 for continued document production.
