The appellant insurer appealed an order requiring it to produce its underwriting file for discovery in an insurance coverage dispute.
The Divisional Court found that while the motion judge applied the wrong test ('could be relevant' instead of 'semblance of relevance'), the result was correct.
Given the unusual circumstances involving allegations of knowledge possessed by the insured and insurer at the time the policy was issued, the entire underwriting file had a semblance of relevance and was properly ordered produced.
The appeal was dismissed.
