CASE LAW

Sandre v Sandre, 2012 ONSC 1916.

This is a motion in a family law case brought by the wife requesting the husband to complying with earlier orders for disclosure, failing which to pay penalty pursuant to Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules.

The husband incorporated NSIRetail Inc to bill and receive payment for his work for another corporation Network Services International Inc. The wife alleged that the husband was/is the directing mind of Network Services, in which the husband insisted no ownership interest.

The husband was ordered earlier to produce documents regarding (i) transactions between Network Services and NSIRetail, (ii) financial documents of NSIRetail, and (iii) financial documents of Network Services. The husband produced inadequate documents of the first two parts, and no documents of Network Services but a solitary letter to it requesting the documents.

The judge was not satisfied with the efforts of the husband. As to the first two parts of documents, the husband was order to produce the requested documents and adequate explanations, failing which he will be subject to a daily penalty of $500. As to the documents of Network Services, the judge found the issue as to who controls the records for Network Services and how those records may be obtained must be resolved, and ordered the husband to bring a motion to request Network Services to produce the required documents. The motion material shall be served to the wife and the wife may file motion material and attend at the motion to make submissions.

Envoy Relocation Services Inc v Canada, 2011 ONSC 7004.

This is an action where a failed bidder sued Government of Canada based on several grounds including allegations of bias and predisposition of the government employees in a 2004 procurement process.

During the examination in chief by the defendant posing questions on an officer of the defendant, the content of some documents prepared by the successful bidder was disclosed, then the plaintiff requested those documents in the 2004 procurement process as well as similar documents for the 2002 procurement process on the basis that they are relevant and related to the same issue.

Defendant argued that after lengthy discovery and trial process no previous request was made for these documents nor plaintiff previously indicated that those documents could be relevant, and that the documents were not made relevant by questioning plaintiff’s witness only for the purpose of responding to questioning by the plaintiff, and additionally that at least documents for the 2002 procurement process were not relevant.

The court found in favor of the plaintiff that the 2004 documents were likely relevant on the substantive issues, particularly to the issue of bias of the government employees, and that the similar 2002 documents were relevant given that the procurement issues in that process could have an impact on the fairness and validity of the 2004 procurement process.