ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT FILE NO.: M9-11/12
DATE: 20121106

BETWEEN:

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Applicant – and – MEGAUPLOAD INC. Moving Party on Motion

N. Dennison, for the Attorney General of Canada (Responding party on motion)

S. Hutchison and F. Schumann, for Megaupload.

and EQUINIX INC.

Respondent )
) MOTION HEARD: November 5, 2012

ENDORSEMENT OF backhouse, j. Released November 6, 2012

[ 1 ] The moving party seeks disclosure of the documents, of which Schedule D to the affidavit of Daniel Raymond contains excerpts. Officer Raymond’s affidavit was used to obtain the search warrant.

[ 2 ] The respondent submits that this disclosure is not appropriate because it is irrelevant; there is no air of reality to any alleged Charter breach; there is a risk of harm by disclosing irrelevant information. A number of cases were referred to. However, none of these discuss the issue in this matter.

[ 3 ] In my view none of these submissions is persuasive in this case. I am satisfied that the moving party is entitled to disclosure of the full document, excerpts from which are included in the affidavit. Proof of the contents of a document pursuant to the best evidence rule requires production of the original document, if available. This is not a case of the moving party seeking disclosure of documents that may or may not be relevant. The document in question was used by the respondent to obtain the search warrant. It must have considered it relevant. It cannot pick and choose the parts of the document it wishes to produce and foreclose production of the balance.

[ 4 ] Under our Civil Rules of Procedure at common law, and as a matter of ordinary common sense, a party who refers to parts of a document, must produce for inspection the entire document, if available. There is no doubt the document is available and is in Court today. I order it produced.

Released November 6, 2012

Backhouse, J