ONTARIO E-DISCOVERY IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
MODEL DOCUMENT #10:
PROPORTIONALITY CHART
(DOCUMENT PRODUCTION)
Purpose of the Proportionality Chart
This proportionality chart is designed to be used by a party bringing a motion for production of documents.
The Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure emphasize the importance of proportionality in connection with all documentary production issues. In applying the Rules, the court is required to make orders and give directions that are proportionate to the importance and complexity of the issues, and to the amount involved, in the proceeding (rule 1.04(1.1)). Parties are required to agree, prior to engaging in discovery, upon a discovery plan that is proportionate to the circumstances of the case, having regard to the factors listed in Rule 29.1.03(3) and The Sedona Canada Principles Addressing Electronic Discovery (the “Sedona Canada Principles”). The court, in determining whether to order a party or other person to produce a document, must consider the list of proportionality factors set out in Rule 29.2.03(1) and (2).
In cases where the parties cannot agree on the scope of documentary production, the party seeking production will be required to satisfy the court that the order sought is proportionate. This proportionality chart is intended to facilitate the argument of a production motion, by collecting in one easy-to-use chart all of the proportionality factors listed in the Rules of Civil Procedure. It is intended that each party would complete a copy of the chart, or that the moving party would prepare the chart, to which the responding party would add its submissions on each point.
Format of the proportionality chart
The first page of the chart provides general background information about the case – including the 7type of claim, the relief sought, and the overall importance and complexity of the issues.
The second page of the chart is structured similarly to the chart used on motions to compel answers to undertakings, and is intended to serve a similar facilitative function, with the moving party completing a portion of the chart and the responding party completing the remainder. The first column is the moving party’s explanation of the nature and scope of the documentary productions at issue. The second column explains the precise preservation or production steps being requested by the moving party. The third column is the moving party’s explanation of the relevance of the documents, by reference to the legal issues in the case, the pleadings, and any relevant evidence. The fourth column is for the moving party’s analysis of the application of the proportionality factors identified by the Rules and refers to the applicable Sedona Canada Principles and case law authority. The fifth column is to be completed by the responding party, explaining its position on the relevance and proportionality issues. The last column is for identifying the outcome of each production dispute, whether by order or agreement.
Although this proportionality chart is designed to be used on a motion for production of documents, a modified version of the chart could be used to argue a motion to compel answers to discovery questions or to seek other discovery relief.
The list of issues for consideration under each column in the chart (the shaded portion in Part II of the proportionality chart) is meant to assist the parties in preparing the chart and the court in analyzing the chart. It can be modified if appropriate. Note: While the headings for each column of the chart will repeat on each successive page in the Word version of the chart, the shaded list of issues does not repeat.
Note regarding use of this document
This document and all of the EIC’s model documents and other publications are available on the Ontario Bar Association’s website at:
http://www.oba.org/En/publicaffairs_en/E-Discovery/model_precedents.aspx
This model document has been prepared and made available to the public by the EIC for informational purposes. It is not provided as legal or technical advice and should not be relied upon as such.
Publications of the EIC are copyrighted by the Ontario E-Discovery Implementation Committee and all rights are reserved. Individuals may download these publications for their own use at no charge. Law firms and other organizations may download these publications and make them available internally for individual use within the firm or organization. EIC publications may be republished, copied or reprinted at no charge for non-profit purposes. Organizations and individuals may provide a link to the publications on the internet without charge provided that proper attribution to the Ontario E-Discovery Implementation Committee is included. For further information, or to request permission to republish, copy or reprint for commercial profit, contact the Chair of the Committee, David Outerbridge, at douterbridge@torys.com.
Feedback on EIC materials
The EIC welcomes comments on all of its model documents and other publications. Any comments or suggestions can be provided to Michele A. Wright at mwright4@toronto.ca.
CV-19-00632310-0000
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
SYLVEN TCHAMBA
Plaintiff(s)
-and-
EMCO CORPORATION
Defendant(s)
PROPORTIONALITY CHART
(Document Production)
- OVERVIEW OF THE ACTION
| 1. Legal Classification of the Claim: | Employment or labour law |
| 2. Relief Sought in Statement of Claim: | Damages in the sum of $388,527.25 for wrongful dismissal, representing 16.5 months’ pay for the remainder of a two-year fixed term contract;Damages in the sum of $116,563.14 in unpaid wages, calculated as follows: $114,449.82 due to lost wages, inclusive of vacation pay; and $2113.32 due to unlawful suspension;Bad faith damages in the amount of $ 25000;Punitive or exemplary damages in the amount of $125000.00 for fraudulent and/or negligent misrepresentation and bad faith conduct;Special damages in a sum to be determined at trial, representing the Plaintiff’s out-of-pocket expenses incurred in connection with the termination of his employment;Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on all amounts found due and owing to the Plaintiff pursuant to the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C-43, as amended;Costs of this action on a substantial indemnity basis together with Harmonized Sales Tax thereon in accordance with the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15 as amended; andSuch further and other relief as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court may deem just. |
| 3. Relief Sought in any Counterclaim, Crossclaim and/or Third Party Claim: |
| 4. Legal Issues For Determination at Trial:Use numbered paragraphs. Include specific references to pleadings. | For each party, identify:Name of Party: Emco Corporation Causes of Action/Defences (list individually): Wrongful termination of employment;Fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation;Deceit; andBreach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Legal Issues Raised by Each Cause of Action or Defence:Wrongful Termination of Employment Paragraphs 26 – 43 of the Plaintiff’s Amended Statement of ClaimWhether the Plaintiff was gainfully employed by the Defendant;Whether the Plaintiff’s employment was terminated by the Defendant or an agent of the Defendant; andWhether the Defendant had good cause for terminating Plaintiff’s employment. Fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation Paragraphs 44 – 66 of Plaintiff’s Amended Statement of Claim Whether the Defendant made false representations to the Plaintiff;Whether the Defendant knew of the falsity of the representations;Whether the Plaintiff relied on the false representations made by the Defendant; andWhether the Plaintiff was harmed as a result of relying on the false representations made by the Defendant. DeceitParagraphs 67 – 80 of Plaintiff’s Amended Statement of Claim Whether the Defendant made a false statement or failed to disclose a material fact to the Plaintiff;Whether the Defendant intended for Plaintiff to rely on the false statement to enter into contract;Whether the Plaintiff entered into contract with the Defendant as a result of relying on the false statement made by the Defendant; andWhether the Plaintiff suffered damage as a result of entering into contract with the Defendant. Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Paragraphs 81 – 86 of Plaintiff’s Amended Statement of Claim Whether there exists an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing between the Plaintiff and Defendant;Whether the actions and/or omissions of the Defendant amount to breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; andWhether the Plaintiff suffered damage as a result of Defendant’s breach of the Implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Heads of Damages Claimed:Misrepresentation damages (deceit)/breach of Contract; Damages for breach of wrongful dismissal corresponding to 16.5 months remainder of 2 years fixed term contract with no mitigation;Damages for 2 days’ illegal unpaid suspension;Bad faith damages;Punitive damages due to actionable misrepresentation; andCosts of this suit. |
| 5. General Statement regarding the Relative Importance and Complexity of the Issues | For each party, identify:Name of Party:Position on importance and complexity of the issues: |
| 6. Applicable Procedural Regime: | □ Commercial List□ Construction Lien Act□ Class Proceedings Act, 1992□ Estates List□ Simplified Procedure (Rule 76)□ Civil Case Management (Rule 77)□ Superior Court of Justice – ordinary regime |
| (Date) | (Name, address, telephone and fax number and e-mail address of the party filing the chart) |
| TO: (Name, address, telephone and fax number and e-mail address of the other parties) |
- Proportionality chart (Document production)
| Document Request | Preservation/ Production | Relevance | Proportionality Factors | Responding Position | Agreement/ Disposition | |
| Document Type(s)Custodian(s) – if knownDate RangePaper and/or Electronic Originals | Applicable Terms from Discovery PlanPreservation Only?Preservation and/or Production of Metadata?Phased Production/Staging?Production Format (image or native file)Can Electronic Originals Be Imaged/Copied/Read Outside of Their Native Environment?Do Electronic Originals Need to Be Inspected/Accessed? | Legal IssueParagraph(s) in the Pleadings Other Documents/Evidence Demonstrating Relevance | Importance and Complexity of the Legal IssueDollar amount involvedTime EstimateCost EstimateUndue Prejudice?Effect on Orderly Progress of the Action?Readily Available from Alternate Sources?Excessive Volume?Who Bears of the Cost (Cost Shifting/Cost Sharing)Reciprocity? (if applicable)Other InformationIdentify specific Sedona Canada Principle(s)Cite specific case law | |||
ENDNOTES
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )
