J Katz

The applicants and a related party obtained orders enforcing letters of request from a Florida court to compel the respondent to produce documents from electronic devices held by an independent third party (PWC).

The US court ordered the respondent to produce non-privileged documents, but on the deadline, his US counsel moved to withdraw, and the respondent unilaterally instructed PWC to revoke his US counsel's access to the database.

The court directed PWC to restore the US counsel's access, finding that the respondent could not unilaterally frustrate the discovery process by firing his lawyer.

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.