The Applicants sought production of certain records that the Respondent refused to produce. Specifically, the Applicants sought an Order directing the Respondent to produce un-redacted versions of certain records and to produce any further relevant and material records in its possession.

Shelley J. held that relevance and materiality are tied to the scope of the pleadings, because the pleadings define the issues between the parties. However, Shelley J. further held that Courts should not be overly strict in assessing relevance and materiality in interlocutory proceedings.  It will be sufficient if counsel can disclose a rational strategy in which the disputed document has a role.

Parties to an Action have an obligation to produce all relevant and material records. A party’s obligation to produce records is not contingent upon the opposing party identifying what records it thinks are in the possession of the other. Further, inconvenience and expenditure of effort are not acceptable reasons for delaying or refusing production. Moreover, disclosure does not bar further disclosure, and records that are relevant and material cannot be held back on the basis that they contain similar information to records already produced. Shelley J. found that the records sought by the Applicants were relevant and material to the litigation and ordered disclosure.