The defendants sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order requiring production of numerous documents relating to police conduct during a blockade and the Crown’s duty to consult with Indigenous peoples before granting mining rights.
The moving parties argued the motion judge failed to give adequate reasons, misapplied relevance and proportionality principles under the Rules of Civil Procedure, and improperly assumed possession of certain documents.
The court held that the motion judge provided sufficient reasons and properly applied the relevance and proportionality requirements for documentary production.
The requested materials, including police notes and records related to consultation obligations, were highly relevant to claims involving access to property and alleged Crown negligence.
The defendants failed to establish good reason to doubt the correctness of the order, and leave to appeal was refused.