Still believe that discovery plans are optional? Think again.
In a decision released on May 21, 2013 (Cash Store Financial Services Inc. v. National Money Mart Co. [2013 O.J. No. 2275), Master Glustein re-confirms that the courts will impose discovery plans and provides some useful guidance on when the courts will elect to do so.
The defendant brought a motion for an order granting leave to amend its pleading and an order imposing a discovery plan. The plaintiff consented to a number of the amendments, but sought an adjournment on the balance pending a proposed cross-motion to strike various parts of the Statement of Defence. The plaintiff took the position that the court should not impose a discovery plan nor a discovery timetable until its proposed motion was determined.
Master Glustein ultimately approved the amendments, and a timetable for discovery, but held that it was premature to impose a discovery plan on the parties, on the following basis:
This decision underscores the need for parties to co-operate, to document that co-operation, and to accept that discovery plans are not optional.