Canada Case Law

Ghai v. Macropus Global Ltd.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Associate Judge Harper dismissed the defendant's application because the disputed matters (compliance, alleged forgery, and relevance of additional documents) are properly addressed at trial where credibility findings and the weight of evidence can be made; the court will not impose a preclusion sanction at this interlocutory stage, although plaintiffs ought to have disclosed all relevant documents by now.

Source excerpt

• Document disclosure
• Rule 7-1 supreme court civil rules
• Sanctions for non-compliance
• Preclusion of evidence
• Striking pleadings

Read case analysis

Canada (Commissioner of Competition) v Google Canada Corp. - 2026 Comp Trib 17 - Order and Reasons - CT-2024-010

Court

Competition Tribunal

The Tribunal ordered that Google must answer the Commissioner’s requested undertaking only as to the three named witnesses (Dr Jayaram, Dr Korula and Mr Mohan) by confirming whether the identified trial transcript excerpts remain true and accurate today and, if changed, how; Google’s broader refusal based on burden, hearsay and context was rejected as to those three witnesses; all other disclosure requests by Google were refused, and the Commissioner’s claimed litigation privilege over Schedule B documents, including witness statements and their exhibits prepared for the dominant purpose of l…

Source excerpt

• Abuse of dominant position
• Section 79 competition act
• Examinations for discovery
• Litigation privilege
• Limitation period (s.79(6))
• Use of foreign testimony

Read case analysis

Montaigne Group Ltd. v. St. Alcuin College for the Liberal Arts Society

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court dismissed the majority of the disclosure demands as unsupported by the pleadings and overbroad/proportionately excessive; it held that bank/payment records, MIGS corporate and financial records, broad correspondence and change documentation were not compelled, but ordered production limited to budget documents specifically related to the project in issue for the period requested.

Source excerpt

• Joint venture agreement
• Document disclosure
• Non-arm's length transactions
• Termination for breach
• Duty of honest performance
• Pleadings govern discovery

Read case analysis

Lowndes, Drosdick, Kantor & Reed, P.A. v. Hirji

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The petition was granted in part and dismissed in part. The Court ordered Hirji to produce specified, narrowly tailored categories of documents relevant to the transaction and causation (including due diligence materials, MyApps' financial statements and condition, business outlook documents, communications between Hirji and identified key persons specifically concerning the proposed or actual transaction, documents evidencing Hirji's identification of MyApps as a target, communications to investors concerning the merger transaction, and communications about advisory contracts to the extent t…

Source excerpt

• Letters rogatory
• Compelled examination
• Document production
• Relevance and overbreadth
• Causation
• Pre‑merger due diligence

Read case analysis

Culig v. The King

Court

Tax Court of Canada

The Tax Court of Canada compelled answers to four discovery undertakings, amended the timetable, and awarded costs to the Crown in a tax appeal about real estate dispositions and penalties.

• Undertakings
• Examination for discovery
• Relevance of discovery
• Case management
• Costs
• Penalties s.163(2) ita

Read case analysis

Nouhi v. Pourtaghi

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

On the evidence before the Registrar the defendants did not comply with the Production Order because the August 2025 List fails to provide sufficient, particularized evidence to support claims of solicitor‑client or litigation privilege or irrelevance for the listed documents, and the defendants' affidavits incorrectly represented that the Registrar had found compliance; accordingly production is inadequate and non‑compliance is found.

Source excerpt

• Production order
• Solicitor‑client privilege
• Litigation privilege
• Special costs
• Document disclosure
• Compliance with court order

Read case analysis

Jiang v. Peoples Trust Company

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Rule 7-7 governs notices to admit in class proceedings; a bare denial satisfies Rule 7-7(2)(a) and is not subject to interlocutory scrutiny absent clear non-compliance; s.12 of the CPA does not authorize the court to deem denials admitted or decide disputed facts on this interlocutory application; refusals or statements of inability under Rule 7-7(2)(b)-(c) require reasons but, given volume and complexity, propriety of those reasons is more appropriately addressed at trial or via costs under Rule 7-7(4).

Source excerpt

• Notice to admit
• Admissions
• Rule 7-7
• Case management
• Costs
• Certification

Read case analysis

Upton v. Vstride Solutions Ltd.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court dismissed the request to add Arjinder Kaur as a defendant, removed Jane Doe from the style of cause, and ordered limited discovery responses.

• Joinder of parties
• Amendment of pleadings
• Examination for discovery
• Production of documents
• Equitable accounting
• Costs

Read case analysis

Gesner v. Buitrago

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court struck the plaintiff’s claim for persistent non-compliance with discovery obligations and abusive litigation conduct, and restricted future filings without leave.

• Striking pleadings
• Examination for discovery
• Abuse of process
• Sealing/privacy orders
• Court sanctions
• Strike-pleadings

Read case analysis

Templeton Construction Ltd. v. Triumph Eastern Canada Ltd.

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The court held the plaintiffs had not satisfied the 'best efforts' standard for several undertaking requests and must conduct OCR searches, identify locations of responsive records, obtain specified non-party files, provide a supplemental damages brief and answers to outstanding undertakings within set timelines; the case management judge may direct disclosure under Rule 15.07 and ordered productions and processes (including privilege redactions) with hard deadlines and prohibition on reliance at trial of documents found after the deadlines without consent or leave of the court.

Source excerpt

• Production of documents
• Undertakings
• Disclosure obligations
• Best efforts search
• Ocr/document search and protocol
• Privilege and redaction

Read case analysis