Coombs v. Fox
- Citation
- 2020 BCSC 1516
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of British Columbia
- Decision
- 9 October 2020
- Posture
- Family Law / Application for Disclosure Under Supreme Court Family Rules R.9 1 (pre Trial)
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of British Columbia
- Decision
- 9 October 2020
- Posture
- Family Law / Application for Disclosure Under Supreme Court Family Rules R.9 1 (pre Trial)
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The requested materials were relevant to issues between the parties and the claimant should have produced and listed them; the court therefore ordered production of all materials delivered to Dr. Hayes and ICBC relating to the respondent and any responses, and awarded costs to the respondent in any event of the cause because the claimant's counsel failed to reply to pre-application correspondence.
Court disposition
Application granted
Orders
- Claimant to produce a full copy of all materials and documents she delivered to Dr. Gary Hayes and ICBC in relation to the Respondent, Ronald Fox, in 2019 and 2020, and any response(s) she received
- Respondent awarded costs of this application in any event of the cause
02
Material facts
Parties
Shirley Marie Coombs a.k.a. Shirley Marie Fox
Claimant Counsel: B. IngramRonald Joseph Fox
Respondent Counsel: S. Specht03
Procedural history
Posture
Family Law / Application for Disclosure Under Supreme Court Family Rules R.9 1 (pre Trial)
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the claimant must produce documents she delivered to third parties (family physician and ICBC) relating to the respondent
- 02
Whether those documents are relevant and should have been listed on an amended List of Documents under Rule 9-1
- 03
Whether failure to reply to pre-application correspondence warrants an award of costs in any event of the cause
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The respondent sought production of all materials the claimant delivered to Dr. Hayes and ICBC in 2019 and 2020 as relevant to the issues in dispute and requested any responses; relied on Supreme Court Family Rules R.9-1 and the parties' disclosure obligations.
- Respondent
- The claimant, through counsel, did not respond to pre-application correspondence and failed to produce or list the documents; in an Application Response counsel later substantially consented but on more limited terms rather than complying with initial disclosure obligations.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Supreme Court Family Rules R.9-1 and disclosure case law
Parties must produce relevant documents and include them on their List of Documents
- 02
Court's discretion under rules and established costs principles
The court may award costs where a party's failure to engage with pre-application correspondence necessitates court intervention
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The requested materials were relevant to issues between the parties and the claimant should have produced and listed them; the court therefore ordered production of all materials delivered to Dr. Hayes and ICBC relating to the respondent and any responses, and awarded costs to the respondent in any event of the cause because the claimant's counsel failed to reply to pre-application correspondence.
Obiter and limits
- Dr. Hayes disposed of unsolicited materials delivered to his office because he did not wish to become involved in a patient's marital dispute
- The claimant's counsel later filed an Application Response substantially consenting to the orders but on narrower terms, which did not excuse the prior non‑compliance
Court disposition
Application granted
- Claimant to produce a full copy of all materials and documents she delivered to Dr. Gary Hayes and ICBC in relation to the Respondent, Ronald Fox, in 2019 and 2020, and any response(s) she received
- Respondent awarded costs of this application in any event of the cause
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of British Columbia · 9 October 2020
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Judgment· 9 October 2020
2020 BCSC 1516 Coombs v. Fox
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Coombs v. Fox, 2020 BCSC 1516 Date: 20201009 Docket: E181926 Registry: Vancouver Between: Shirley Marie Coombs a.k.a. Shirley Marie Fox Claimant And Ronald Joseph Fox Respondent Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Basran Reasons for Judgment Counsel for Claimant: B. Ingram Counsel for Respondent: S. Specht Written Submissions Dated: October 7, 2020 Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, B.C. October 9, 2020 [1] Ronald Fox seeks disclosure of materials sent by Shirley Coombs to Dr. Gary Hayes and the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia ("ICBC") in 2019 and 2020. These materials are regarding Mr. Fox. Dr. Hayes is Mr. Fox's family physician. Mr. Fox also wants copies of any responses Ms. Coombs may have received in respect of these materials. He also seeks costs in any event of the cause. [2] The parties are former spouses, married in 1993 and separated in June 2018. The underlying action commenced in July 2018. [3] In June 2020, Dr. Hayes informed Mr. Fox that Ms. Coombs delivered a package of materials to his office in late 2019. The materials were regarding Mr. Fox. They apparently included letters from Ms. Coombs, photographs, and a large volume of legal papers. Dr. Hayes disposed of these unsolicited materials because he did not want to become involved in the marital problems of one of his patients. [4] Also in June
2020, Mr. Fox discovered that Ms. Coombs had also sent materials regarding him to ICBC. [5] On July 13, 2020, Ms. Specht, counsel for Mr. Fox, wrote to Mr. Ingram, counsel for Ms. Coombs, seeking disclosure of the materials sent to Dr. Hayes and ICBC, pursuant to R. 9-1 of the Supreme Court Family Rules. Mr. Ingram did not reply to this correspondence and did not produce or list the requested documents. [6] On September 11, 2020, Ms. Specht filed a Notice of Application seeking the requested documents. This is the application that is before the Court. [7] On September 29, 2020, Mr. Ingram filed an Application Response in which he substantially consented to the orders sought on the application but on somewhat different and more limited terms. [8] I am satisfied that the requested documents are relevant to the issues in dispute between the parties. Mr. Ingram should have provided these documents to Ms. Specht and he should have listed them on an amended List of Documents. [9] I am granting the order sought: The Claimant, Ms. Coombs, must produce a full copy of all materials and documents that she delivered to Dr. Gary Hayes and ICBC in relation to the Respondent, Ronald Fox, in 2019 and 2020, and any response(s) that she may have received. [10] Mr. Ingram's failure to respond to Ms. Specht's letter dated July 13, 2020 necessitated this application. On this basis, the Respondent is entitled to his costs of this application in any event of the cause. "Basran, J."
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.