Lawrence Rosen

In a professional negligence action against a chartered accounting firm arising from alleged failure to detect employee fraud, the plaintiff moved for further production of the defendant’s records after discoveries had already taken place.

The request relied on a new expert report asserting that a professional accountant required access to the complete set of documents and correspondence relating to the defendant’s engagements with the plaintiff from 2001 to 2009.

The court held that the requested production largely duplicated issues that could have been addressed on the earlier production motion and amounted to a fishing expedition.

The moving party failed to demonstrate a change in circumstances or identify specific deficiencies in the existing production.

The motion for further production was dismissed and costs were awarded to the responding party.

The defendants moved to strike the plaintiffs’ pleadings for failure to comply with a production order requiring an accounting of revenues and supporting documents relating to the exploitation of certain patented shoe insole technology.

The plaintiffs had initially failed to meet the deadline and their early attempts at compliance were deficient, but they later produced extensive supplementary disclosure and accounting materials.

The court held that although the plaintiffs’ record‑keeping was poor, they had made earnest efforts and had achieved substantial compliance with the production order.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to strike the pleadings, emphasizing the preference for deciding civil disputes on their merits and the absence of wilful non‑compliance.

The plaintiffs’ cross‑motion seeking leave to revive a previously adjourned summary judgment motion was also dismissed because the action was imminently scheduled for trial and the motion could disrupt the trial schedule.

The applicant sought maximum death benefits of $200,000 following her husband's death in a motor vehicle accident, arguing he was self-employed as a securities trader.

The insurer paid the minimum $50,000, contending he was retired and living off investments.

The arbitrator found that the deceased's investment activities did not constitute self-employment or a business, as he was not an aggressive trader and his portfolio consisted largely of secure, fixed-income investments.

Consequently, the deceased was not employed at the time of the accident, and the applicant was entitled only to the minimum death benefit of $50,000.