Ontario civil | Bankruptcy and Insolvency Civil Procedure
DISCOVERY
Documents relevant to product liability and duty to warn causes of action
Lawsuits arose out of airline crash in which people died. Appellants manufactured engine that failed and was identified as one of causes of crash. Appellants were ordered to produce documents concerning parts, counterweights and accidents. Documents were found to be relevant to show appellants had propensity to manufacture improperly and that they knew of issues with similar systems. Appellants complained they were being asked to produce large number of documents over substantial period of time. Appellants appealed. Appeal dismissed. There was no error in assessment of relevancy. Documents were relevant to product liability and to duty to warn causes of action pleaded. Appellants were in regulated field where information was routinely updated as state of knowledge advanced. Without evidence from appellants with description of hardship to counterbalance relevancy and discretionary factors, there was no basis to conclude there was error of law, principle, or appreciation of facts.
Hudson v. ATC Aviation Technical Consultants (Mar. 4, 2014, Ont. S.C.J., Myers J., File No. CV-09-37858800-0000) 239 A.C.W.S. (3d) 54.
Documents relevant to product liability and duty to warn causes of action
Lawsuits arose out of airline crash in which people died. Appellants manufactured engine that failed and was identified as one of causes of crash. Appellants were ordered to produce documents concerning parts, counterweights and accidents. Documents were found to be relevant to show appellants had propensity to manufacture improperly and that they knew of issues with similar systems. Appellants complained they were being asked to produce large number of documents over substantial period of time. Appellants appealed. Appeal dismissed. There was no error in assessment of relevancy. Documents were relevant to product liability and to duty to warn causes of action pleaded. Appellants were in regulated field where information was routinely updated as state of knowledge advanced. Without evidence from appellants with description of hardship to counterbalance relevancy and discretionary factors, there was no basis to conclude there was error of law, principle, or appreciation of facts.
Hudson v. ATC Aviation Technical Consultants (Mar. 4, 2014, Ont. S.C.J., Myers J., File No. CV-09-37858800-0000) 239 A.C.W.S. (3d) 54.
