Endale v. Parker, 2022 ONSC 2008

The defendant in this motor vehicle action brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to answer undertakings resulting from his examination for discovery, to pay the costs associated with obtaining the documents required to satisfy the undertakings, and to produce a further and better affidavit of documents. Justice Valente granted the motion, holding that any documents within the plaintiff’s “power” were to be produced at the plaintiff’s expense (save for reasonable photocopying charges which the defendant agreed to pay). Justice Valente accepted the principle that each party must fund its own case, and directed that the obligation to produce documents under Rule 30.01(1) cannot be the responsibility of an adverse party who may have better financial means to source the documents. There was no evidence before Justice Valente to support a departure from this general rule.

Murphy v. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 2020 ONSC 1189

The plaintiff sustained injuries as a result of an incident on a Toronto bike path and commenced an action for damages against the City of Toronto and Toronto Region and Conservation Authority. The plaintiff brought a motion to compel answers to certain refusals given at the defendants’ examinations for discovery. Master Robinson held that post-incident remedial measures can be considered in determining whether an occupier met its standard of care, and ordered production of relevant documentation. Master Robinson further held that questions regarding a party’s legal position are proper on discovery, and ordered that the defendant answer the refused legal questions.