The plaintiffs moved for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from an interlocutory order regarding undertakings and refusals on discovery, and the subsequent costs order.
The plaintiffs argued the motion judge erred in applying the principle of proportionality to limit discovery.
The court dismissed the motion, finding no conflicting decisions on the issue of law and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision.
The court also noted the plaintiffs' failure to comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure regarding factum length and motion record contents.
