The parties were husband and wife who agreed to engage in binding Judicial Dispute Resolution (“JDR”). Shortly before the JDR, the wife sought an Order to compel the husband to provide further Undertakings, which he refused to provide during Questioning. The wife argued that the Undertakings sought were relevant and material to the JDR. The Court determined that Rule 5.25(1) applied. Justice Lee summarized prior authority dealing with the former Rules, concluding that the current Rule 5.25 can be read as a codification of the former Rule 186. Under Rule 5.25, a record is relevant and material only if it could reasonably be expected to:

a) significantly help determine one or more of the issues raised in the pleadings; or

b) ascertain evidence that could reasonably be expected to significantly help determine one or more of the issues raised in the pleadings.

Lee J. stated that the Rule requires that relevance and materiality is linked to determining the outstanding issues pursuant to the JDR agreement. The Court agreed with the husband’s argument that only documents that are “more than minor assistance” in determining the issues raised in the pending JDR need be produced. Further, pursuant to Rule 1.2, the Court must fairly and justly resolve Claims in a timely and effective manner. The Rules should be used to identify real issues in dispute and to decide the quickest means to resolving a Claim at the least expense. In light of the upcoming JDR, the Court only ordered the husband to provide some but not all of the requested Undertakings.