The Plaintiff commenced an Action against the Defendant insurer on the basis that the Defendant had failed to pay long term disability payments. The Plaintiff sought to compel the production of the Defendant’s records which the Defendant had refused to produce through its Undertaking responses. The Defendant argued that the records sought by the Plaintiff were not relevant.

Manderscheid J. reviewed the records in question and considered whether they were relevant and material under Rule 5.2(1). His Lordship considered prior leading authorities which provide that, in order for the evidence to be relevant and material, the party needs only to show a plausible line of argument regarding the probative value of the records. Manderscheid J. determined that the records were relevant to the Plaintiff’s claim of bad faith because they would show how insurance case managers were expected to deal with the Plaintiff’s claim; further, the records were material because they would assist in evaluating whether the long term disability claim was dealt with in accordance with the Defendant’s best practices. Justice Manderscheid agreed that the records at issue met the criteria of relevance and materiality under Rule 5.2(1), and ordered that the Defendant produce them.