This decision deals with the propriety of Crown pleadings and responses to discovery questions. It is also a rare decision where the court orders solicitor-client costs, and is especially rarer because the costs were awarded to the Crown.
[42] With the questions at hand the deponent was essentially being asked to recall all the contracts between the Appellant and CEL and other members of the group as well as between any member of the group and third parties and then identify differences in the legal relationships. These are not only compound questions, especially difficult having regard to the evidence that the various documents in question were complex and different from one another, but also require, as the Respondent has argued, that the deponent would have to segregate all the potential documents in issue, including some with third parties it may not even have knowledge of in Question 1121, and then identify those documents which related to a particular issue, something found improper in Kossow v Her Majesty the Queen, 2008 TCC 422, 2008 DTC 4408, at paragraph 60. The Appellant is aware of which documents the entities entered into and their terms and has the ability to both identify and pose specific questions related thereto.
Conclusion
[44] The Appellant has not satisfied me that it is entitled to an Order with respect to any of the relief requested in the motion. Frankly, I am of the view the Appellant had no reasonable grounds to justify seeking the relief sought and frankly failed to take proper steps under the Rules to first seek less dramatic relief than that sought as referred to early in these reasons. The Court should not tolerate unnecessary motions that serve only to delay the process at substantial cost to all parties, particularly when the party bringing the said motion is the one alleging abuse of process. The Appellant’s motion is dismissed in its entirety and the Respondent shall be entitled to costs on a solicitor and its own client basis with respect hereto, payable in any event of the cause.
See Cameco Corporation v. The Queen 2014 TCC 367 (Pizzitelli)