Galehead Inc. v. Trinity ( The )
T-1074-97
Hargrave P.
3/11/98
9 pp.
Main action for American towage services rendered to ship Cosanova then on charter to Overseas Maritime Services S.A. (Overseas)-Cosanova sank and action directed against sistership Trinity-Present application for production of all of accounts of plaintiffs for three ships Overseas had on charter and to which Bay-Houston Towing (BHT) rendered services; all of plaintiffs' documents related to subsequent bankruptcy of Overseas; copies of any communication between BHT and Overseas before towing services rendered to Cosanova, which might indicate who requested services and terms thereof; any file of BHT, in connection with Cosanova, which might explain why BHT continued to provide services to Overseas over 3- or 4-month period when BHT accounts not being paid-Application denied-Had application for further documents been under former R. 448, motion would have been denied, in all probability without reasons, characterizing it as fishing expedition-Whereas counsel for defendant submitting production of documents under present rules and specifically r. 222(2) broader, Sgayias D. et al., Federal Court Practice, 1998 (Carswell) and Hughes, Roger T. 1998/89 Annotated Federal Court Act and Rules (Butterworth) of view production of documents now narrower-Relevancy defined in r. 222(2): "document of party is relevant if party intends to rely on it or if document tends to adversely affect party's case or to support another party's case"-On strict reading of this definition of relevancy, in r. 222(2) party, arguably, might not have to produce document relevant in traditional sense and which supports own case, but upon which that party does not intend to rely-In that sense, new rule for production of documents may be narrower than R. 448-In addition, old R. 448, as interpreted by Federal Court, required production of any document which might reasonably be supposed to contain information which may directly or indirectly enable party requiring production to advance his own case or to damage case of adversary-Furthermore, under old Rules, for defendant to seek production of documents in question would have been held fishing expedition where defendant neither able to show material had some semblance of relevancy nor, by persuasive evidence, to demonstrate that such documents available-In present case, applicant has neither produced any persuasive evidence additional documents available nor that relevant information has been suppressed-Mere suspicion document exists, or that might be relevant, fishing expedition-Not necessary to decide limits of r. 222(2)-Sufficient, for purposes of deciding this motion, to determine that new definition of relevancy certainly not broader and very likely narrower than concept of relevancy set out in traditional case law-Federal Court Rules, C.R.C., c. 663, R. 448 (as am. by SOR/90-846, s. 15)-Federal Court Rules, 1998, SOR/98-106, r. 222(2).