Samantha Danielle Ambrozy

Following a motion concerning implementation of a discovery plan and production of documents, the court addressed the issue of costs between the plaintiff and one defendant insurer after the other defendants resolved costs by agreement.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs, arguing substantial success, while the insurer contended it was the successful party and sought its own costs.

The court found that neither party was measurably more successful overall.

Although the insurer prevailed on the principal production issues, the motion itself was necessary to resolve outstanding discovery matters.

The court concluded that fairness required no order as to costs between the plaintiff and the insurer.

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.