The New Rules: Appealed and Appealing

 The case law continues to build under Ontario’s new Rules of Civil Procedure. Courts appear to see the appeal of not only the amendments themselves, but of the basic principles underlying those involved in discovery, proportionality and reasonableness in particular. 

The Appeal

These basic principles (in part) formed the subject matter of the recent appeal case of Wahid v. Malinovski, 2010, ONSC CanLII 3249, decided on July 7, 2010.  The court was asked to overturn the order of a Master who had ordered Wahid to provide a further Affidavit of Documents and to produce certain relevant document by a determined date. The main grounds for the appeal were that the Master misapplied Rule 29.01, that she failed to apply the “purpose and spirit of the new Rules”, that she misapprehended the evidence regarding the relevance of the requested documents, and lastly, that she failed to exercise her discretion judicially in granting an award of costs. 

The Dismissal

The court dismissed the appeal in its entirety. 

The value of this case?

In its decision, the court confirms that the amendments to the Rules do not negate pre-existing discovery obligations or judicial discretion.  

Pursuant to Rule 30.04(5), the court may at any time order production of unprivileged, relevant documents in the possession, control or power of a party…[n]one of the new Rules amendments hamstring the court’s discretion under Rule 30.04(5) to order production of documents for discovery. (para. 11) 

Further, the basic principles of fairness and efficiency in litigation, and the doctrine of proportionality continue to be endorsed by courts:  

Discovery is to facilitate settlement or, if that is not achievable, to make the trial process more efficient and fair. Concerns about discoveries being unduly long and costly, sometimes turning into fishing expeditions, have stewed in recent years:  see Osborne Report at 59. New provisions were added and certain provisions of the Rules were amended…to streamline the discovery process.” (para. 6) 

Rule 29.2.03 sets out a list of factors to be considered by a court when ordering production of unprivileged, relevant documents in the possession control or power of a party (including time, expense, prejudice, undue interference with the orderly progress of the action, availability of the information or record)…underpinning all of the factors listed in the Rule is the overriding principle of proportionality. (para. 9)

Production in the 21st Century – Lessons for Counsel

Recently, Master Short of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice canvassed the present state of litigation document management software and the potential difficulties that must be overcome by counsel working co-operatively. 

The Case

In Apotex Inc. v. Richter Gedeon Vegyeszeti Gyar RT, [2010] O.J. No. 2718, the defendant Ercros moved for a further and better affidavit of documents, including a particularized privilege schedule, and production of all relevant documents in the power, possession and control of the plaintiff, Apotex. 

Apotex moved for assistance in the particularization and the provision of enhanced electronic access to Ercros’ productions. Apotex alleged that the DVD originally produced by Ercros did not sufficiently describe its documents and further, that Apotex had experienced difficulty in retrieving specific documents from it. Ercros then produced its documents in a Summation Briefcase to allow Apotex to import the documents directly into its own document management software. Apotex took the position that was insufficient. 

The Decision

Master Short favoured Ercros, citing the new Rules of Civil Procedure, The Sedona Canada Principles®, and the test for proportionality. Ercros was granted the relief sought, while Apotex’s motion was dismissed. The provision of the Summation Briefcase was deemed sufficient in that Apotex had no further difficulties accessing the Ercros productions.  

Lessons Learned (and to be learned)

Noting that “there are lessons to be learned by the profession on how to deal with what are clearly problems that are contributed to by enhanced modern computing power and software”, Master Short commented favourably on counsel’s efforts in this case to fashion a sensible solution to the problems encountered. The use of electronic production to gain tactical advantage was discouraged: 

The requirement, in part arising from the “equality of arms” component of proportionality, does not mean that a party need provide a computer system to their opponents, but they do need to work together to facilitate the exchange of information and a practical production and exchange of the “bibliographic data” attached to their productions.” (para. 71) 

What does this case mean?

This case stands for a number of interesting and useful discovery propositions, including: 

• In this electronic age, a motion for a further and better affidavit of documents can be brought solely to obtain the court’s assistance in establishing the format in which electronically stored information will be produced along with the format, content and organization of information to be exchanged; (para. 73)  
• Courts expect counsel (to at least attempt) to solve their production problems in a co-operative and pragmatic fashion; (para. 42)
• Electronic production should not be used by one party to gain a tactical advantage over another; (para. 71)
• “Proportionality requires both sides to turn their minds to documents that are not in their direct possession. Often parties simply acknowledge they once had the originals of documents for which they now only retain a “file copy”. The requirement of the Form is broader. Particularly where there are corporate affiliates over which a party has the “power” to obtain copies. Whether listed in Schedule “A” or “C” such documents still need to be identified and produced, if available.” (para. 113)