The plaintiff subcontractor brought a motion seeking implementation of a discovery plan and further production of documents in an action arising from unpaid work on a construction project.
The claim involved alleged entitlement to payment under a Labour and Material Payment Bond and claims of negligence, misrepresentation, and breach of duty to disclose against the owner, its supervisor, and the surety.
The court applied the relevance and proportionality principles under Rules 30.02 and 29.2 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to determine the scope of documentary production.
Certain categories of documents relating to the issuance of bonds, other creditors, and general practices under the Construction Lien Act were found irrelevant and need not be produced, while documents relating to payments to the contractor, certain daily project reports, and materials relevant to the surety’s prejudice defence were ordered produced.
Claims of solicitor‑client privilege over redacted portions of internal communications were upheld.