Delay of action was caused solely by defendant’s failure to produce surveillance report

Plaintiff was lawyer and defendant was business which provided private investigator services. Action arose in relation to surveillance of plaintiff conduct by defendant, who was hired by plaintiff’s former spouse during divorce proceedings. Plaintiff claimed defendant took photographs or video of inside of his home or that of other related family members, which were then disseminated to third parties without his consent. Defendant had not produced investigative report, maintaining that under R. 30.02(2) of Rules of Civil Procedure it was not required to produce report because it was privileged document. Plaintiff brought successful motion for order requiring defendant to produce copy of report with videotape surveillance of plaintiff together with investigate report. Parties made submissions on costs. Defendant was ordered to pay costs to plaintiff on partial indemnity basis in amount of $3,339.82, all-inclusive. Any delay in furtherance of action was caused solely by defendant’s failure to produce surveillance report. Precluding recovery for costs by plaintiff lawyer who had formally retained counsel from within same firm would immunize any potential defendant from costs award associated with litigation. Plaintiff was entitled to his costs as there was nexus and causal relation to earlier motion with plaintiff’s success in obtaining relief on substantive issue of production.

Camporese v. Bay Area Investigations (2019), 2019 CarswellOnt 3743, 2019 ONSC 1667, A.J. Goodman J., In Chambers (Ont. S.C.J.); additional reasons (2019), 2019 CarswellOnt 1746, 2019 ONSC 962, A.J. Goodman J. (Ont. S.C.J.).

Case Law is a weekly summary of notable civil and criminal court decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Canada and all Ontario courts. These cases may be found online in WestlawNext Canada. To subscribe, please visit store.thomsonreuters.ca