Thornton v. Thornton

Thornton v. Thornton

Third‑party records that the plaintiff can only obtain copies of (i.e., are within her power but not in her possession or control) do not fall within the obligation to list or produce under Rules 26(1) and 27(20); exercising the court's discretion, the plaintiff is excused from complying with Rule 26(1) in respect...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2002 BCSC 92
Parties
Plaintiff: IRENA THORNTON; Defendant: JOHN WRIGHT THORNTON; Defendant: CHARLIE CHAMOUN
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 January 2002
Procedural Posture
Family Law Property/economic Disparity Dispute / Examination for Discovery Discovery Production Application
Outcome
Court held third‑party documents obtainable only by the plaintiff are not within her possession or control for Rules 26(1) and 27(20); exercising discretion, the plaintiff is excused from compliance with Rule 26(1) for those documents, the defendant may utilize the plaintiff's signed authorizations to obtain the...
Legal Topics
Document Production, Possession Vs Control of Documents, Third Party Records, Cost Allocation, Authorizations, Rules of Court Interpretation
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Family Law Evidence Discovery Document Production Possession Vs Control of Documents Third Party Records Cost Allocation +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

IRENA THORNTON

Plaintiff

JOHN WRIGHT THORNTON

Defendant

CHARLIE CHAMOUN

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Family Law Property/economic Disparity Dispute / Examination for Discovery Discovery Production Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether documents held by third parties but obtainable by the plaintiff are within the plaintiff's "possession or control" under Rules 26(1) and 27(20)
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff must obtain and produce third‑party records and bear the cost
  3. 3 Whether signed authorizations offered by the plaintiff are sufficient for the defendant to obtain third‑party documents

Ratio Decidendi

Third‑party records that the plaintiff can only obtain copies of (i.e., are within her power but not in her possession or control) do not fall within the obligation to list or produce under Rules 26(1) and 27(20); exercising the court's discretion, the plaintiff is excused from complying with Rule 26(1) in respect of those documents and the defendant may make use of the plaintiff's offer of signed authorizations to obtain them, subject to the court's other directions and the parties' procedural options.

Court Disposition

Court held third‑party documents obtainable only by the plaintiff are not within her possession or control for Rules 26(1) and 27(20); exercising discretion, the plaintiff is excused from compliance with Rule 26(1) for those documents, the defendant may utilize the plaintiff's signed authorizations to obtain the...

Orders

  • Plaintiff excused from complying with Rule 26(1) in relation to documents held by third parties and obtainable only by the plaintiff (if court wrong on Rules interpretation, discretion exercised to excuse compliance)
  • Defendant may take advantage of plaintiff's offer to sign authorizations to obtain the requested third‑party documents (court made no substantive order compelling production beyond accepting authorizations as a practical alternative)