Jeffrey A. Kaufman

The parties brought competing motions seeking further documentary production in litigation concerning early termination of a commercial lease.

The landlord sought disclosure of the tenant’s corporate financial statements to assess claimed damages, while the tenant sought disclosure of the landlord’s rent rolls and leasing records to support its mitigation defence and counterclaim.

The court held that both categories of documents met the relevance test under the Rules of Civil Procedure notwithstanding commercial sensitivity.

Each party was ordered to produce the requested information, subject to the possibility of narrower agreement between counsel.

The court also directed the parties to update their discovery plan and consider involving accounting experts to streamline production and discovery.

The parties brought competing motions seeking further documentary production in litigation concerning early termination of a commercial lease.

The landlord sought disclosure of the tenant’s corporate financial statements to assess claimed damages, while the tenant sought disclosure of the landlord’s rent rolls and leasing records to support its mitigation defence and counterclaim.

The court held that both categories of documents met the relevance test under the Rules of Civil Procedure notwithstanding commercial sensitivity.

Each party was ordered to produce the requested information, subject to the possibility of narrower agreement between counsel.

The court also directed the parties to update their discovery plan and consider involving accounting experts to streamline production and discovery.

An appeal from a master's order compelling a non-party witness to answer questions and produce documents on an examination under Rule 39.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The examination related to efforts to enforce a judgment against a dissolved corporation by seeking relief against an alleged corporate successor.

The appellant argued the trial judge was functus and that the questions were irrelevant because the court lacked jurisdiction to vary the judgment.

The court held that the requested questions were relevant to a pending motion seeking enforcement and potential relief under ss. 242 and 243 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act concerning property of dissolved corporations and shareholder liability.

The master's decision was entitled to deference and disclosed no error of law.