Baird v. Barkhouse

Baird v. Barkhouse

The motion was granted in large part because the plaintiff failed to take reasonable and timely steps to locate and produce relevant documents requested at discovery, made inconsistent and incomplete discovery answers without timely correction under Rule 18.19, and the requested records are relevant to the damages claims and the foundation of the expert report; accordingly the court ordered production or written explanations and specified deadlines to enforce the ongoing disclosure obligations under the Rules.

Citation
2013 NSSC 425
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Jeffrey Warren Baird; Defendant/applicant: Brian Vincent Barkhouse
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Motor Vehicle Negligence Personal Injury / Discovery / Pre Trial Motion for Production of Documents
Outcome
Motion granted in part; plaintiff ordered to produce outstanding documents and to provide written statements where documents cannot be produced, with specified timeframes; costs submissions invited.
Legal Topics
Disclosure Obligations, Document Production at Discovery, Expert Report Foundation, Ongoing Disclosure, Rule 18.19 Error in Discovery, Relevance Threshold
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Evidence Discovery Tort Negligence Disclosure Obligations Document Production at Discovery Expert Report Foundation Ongoing Disclosure +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jeffrey Warren Baird

Plaintiff/respondent

Brian Vincent Barkhouse

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Motor Vehicle Negligence Personal Injury / Discovery / Pre Trial Motion for Production of Documents

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether outstanding documents requested at discovery must be produced
  2. 2 Whether plaintiff satisfied ongoing disclosure obligations under Rule 14.08
  3. 3 Whether plaintiff complied with Rule 18.19 duty to correct erroneous or incomplete discovery answers

Ratio Decidendi

The motion was granted in large part because the plaintiff failed to take reasonable and timely steps to locate and produce relevant documents requested at discovery, made inconsistent and incomplete discovery answers without timely correction under Rule 18.19, and the requested records are relevant to the damages claims and the foundation of the expert report; accordingly the court ordered production or written explanations and specified deadlines to enforce the ongoing disclosure obligations under the Rules.

Court Disposition

Motion granted in part; plaintiff ordered to produce outstanding documents and to provide written statements where documents cannot be produced, with specified timeframes; costs submissions invited.

Orders

  • Produce all relevant business records of Glace Bay Cycle and Motor for 2006-2009 or, if none exist, provide written particulars and a Rule 18.19(1) statement within 60 days.
  • Search for and disclose records from Dr. MacNeill's Sydney Pain Clinic forthwith; if not located, obtain and provide copies within 60 days.