Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-08-369412, CV-08-00362956 DATE: 20210722

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Trudel, Suave, Mallory/Stewart AND: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario et al

BEFORE: Mr. Justice Chalmers

COUNSEL: D. Charney and S. Bishop-Hall for Plaintiffs, Trudel, Suave and Mallory J. Suave, in person; D. Mayer, E. Bala and M. Mortimer for the Defendants

HEARD: On July 22, 2021 by teleconference

Endorsement

[1] Mr. Stewart did not attend the case conference today despite being advised of the date/time and being provided with the conference call co-ordinates.

[2] By endorsement dated March 24, 2020, the discovery of the Defendants was adjourned to a three-week period commencing November 9, 2020, to take place by videoconference. At the case conference today, I was advised that the discoveries of Vicki Bair and Heather LaMarsh were completed at that time. The parties agreed to complete the remaining discoveries between October 12-20, 2021.

[3] The Defendants delivered an Affidavit of Documents on the Plaintiffs several years ago. Schedule A includes video and audio records. Those documents were not copied, but instead the Defendants offered to allow counsel for the Plaintiffs to attend at their premises to inspect the media documents. Current counsel for the Plaintiffs, Trudel, Suave and Mallory states that it is not convenient to attend the Crown’s offices. Counsel requests copies of the documents. Plaintiffs’ counsel prioritized their request and listed 8 items they wish to have copied and produced at this time. Given the limited request, the Crown agreed to produce a copy of those documents. Seven of the records are expected to be provided by August 6, 2021. There is one document which will require the blurring of an image of an informant. That document is expected to be provided by August 31, 2021.

[4] In addition to eight prioritized documents, the Plaintiffs request copies of all other media documents listed in Schedule A. Counsel argues that the documents are relevant and are required for the upcoming discoveries. The Defendants state that the cost of reviewing the documents and redacting or blurring images to protect informants along with the cost of copying would be prohibitive. The Defendant continues to be agreeable to counsel for the Plaintiffs to attend and inspect the documents. If after inspection, there are documents that the Plaintiffs wish to have copied, that issue could be considered at that time. The Defendants stated that although they were prepared to incur the cost of copying a limited number of media files, if the Plaintiffs require copies of other documents, the cost ought to be borne by the Plaintiffs.

[5] Rule 30.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure requires a party to produce for inspection any document listed in Schedule A of the Affidavit of Documents. When a document is produced for inspection, the party reviewing the document may, if the document can be reproduced, make a copy of the document at its own expense.

[6] I am of the view that in offering an opportunity to inspect the media files, the Defendants have complied with their obligations pursuant to the Rules.

[7] I order that the Crown shall make the media documents available for inspection at their offices. The inspection is to take place on dates convenient to counsel for both parties but shall be completed by September 1, 2021. I expect that if counsel for the Plaintiffs makes a reasonable request for a copy of one or more of the media documents, the Crown will comply with the request subject to redaction or blurring of images of confidential information. If the parties are unable to agree with respect to the documents to be copied or which party is to bear the cost, a further case conference may be arranged with me.

[8] The inspection shall be by counsel for the Plaintiffs only. The media may contain the names of police informants which should not be disclosed. Counsel, as officers of the court, are expected to keep the sensitive information including the identity of informants confidential. If the documents are copied, the confidential information may be redacted before the documents are produced.

[9] Counsel for the Defendants advised that there continues to be video recordings of counsel which were recorded and posted without consent, on Mr. Stewart’s social media. I renew my earlier order that no party is permitted to make any video or audio recordings of the on record or off record discussions which may take place during the discoveries. No recordings are to be posted on social media and all previous posts are to be removed.

[10] As case management judge, I remain seized with respect to all procedural matters.

Date: July 22, 2021