2 total
Costs of a successful discovery motion were significantly reduced due to the parties' failure to create a mandatory discovery plan.
This is a costs endorsement following a motion where the defendants sought to compel the plaintiff to answer undertakings and reattend discovery.
The court found the defendants were largely successful on the underlying motion, obtaining an order for the plaintiff to answer undertakings and refusals in six of eight categories.
However, the court significantly reduced the defendants' requested costs from $19,249.65 to $5,000.00 due to the parties' failure, particularly the defendants', to engage in mandatory discovery planning under Rule 29.1.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The court emphasized that the motion was avoidable had proper discovery planning occurred, highlighting the importance of this rule for efficient litigation.
The court partially granted a motion to compel discovery answers, enforcing proportionality and protecting solicitor-client privilege.
The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to answer undertakings and refusals from his examination for discovery and to re-attend for further questions.
The underlying action involves a claim for damages for breach of contract and unjust enrichment related to a joint venture to grow marijuana.
The court applied relevance and proportionality principles, compelling the plaintiff to provide detailed particulars for his damages claim, including expenses and labour, and to produce supporting evidence.
The court denied the production of the plaintiff's tax returns and Mr. Jassal's legal file, finding the latter privileged and not waived, but ordered production of correspondence from Mr. Jassal to the defendants.
The plaintiff's medical files were also deemed irrelevant.
The court ordered the plaintiff to re-attend discovery for a limited time (90 minutes) to address the new answers, emphasizing the need for proportionality and criticizing the parties' failure to engage in discovery planning.
