MUJAHID v MEHMOOD

The Plaintiff, a political candidate, alleged that the Defendant defamed him by writing a letter to their political party and seeking a restraining Order against him, and that the Defendant conspired with others to have the Plaintiff removed as the party's candidate. The Defendant had obtained an ex parte restraining Order, which was later vacated and replaced with a
no-contact Order before the Action was discontinued.

The Plaintiff sought and obtained from Applications Judge Park a Production Order requiring the Defendant to produce all communications with third parties to whom he sent the restraining Order. At the same Application, he sought an Order under Rule 5.13 compelling the United Conservative Association (“UCP”) to produce records concerning the Plaintiff, including internal correspondence respecting the Plaintiff. Applications Judge Park dismissed this part of the Application.

The Plaintiff appealed.

On Appeal, Justice Little found that the Plaintiff failed to provide any concrete evidence that the requested record actually existed, relying instead on speculation. It rejected his argument that minimal evidence shifts the burden to others, emphasizing that Rule 5.13 does not allow “fishing expeditions” for third-party documents without first meeting strict criteria. Ultimately, the Court held that none of the required criteria were satisfied, the requested information was of limited relevance anyway, and Applications Judge Park made no error in denying the request.

Further, the Court rejected the argument that it shared responsibility for the Plaintiff’s situation simply because it had issued an ex parte restraining Order that was later vacated. It held that such Orders are legitimately granted with safeguards, including mandatory review, and that the process did not make the Court complicit in any alleged abuse.