Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Plaintiffs sought a court order to compel forensic access to a defendant's server to locate a potentially missing call recording.

• The dispute centered on whether a call about a gas leak was made and properly recorded by the defendant’s call center.

• Four Star Communications produced a file matching the date and time but not the content claimed by the plaintiff.

• Plaintiff relied on the recollection of a witness, while the defendant relied on server logs, internal notes, and audio files.

• The court emphasized the balance between discovery rights and data privacy, referencing relevant precedents.

• Application was dismissed as plaintiffs failed to meet the high evidentiary standard required for intrusive digital production.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and the incident

The case arises from an explosion that occurred on August 22, 2023, at a vacant building located at 422 Dominion Street in Prince George, British Columbia. The blast was apparently caused by a natural gas leak and led to serious damage to a neighboring property where the plaintiffs, 1075459 B.C. Ltd. and Encore Promotions Inc., operated a business. This disruption led to ongoing losses and formed the basis of their lawsuit.

A day before the explosion, at 6:20 a.m. on August 21, 2023, a City of Prince George employee named Victoria McGivern allegedly called the City's 311 line, operated outside business hours by Four Star Communications Inc., to report the smell of gas. Ms. McGivern later stated that the city had failed to respond to her report, and she called Fortis BC the next day shortly before the explosion occurred.

The plaintiffs’ claim and application

The plaintiffs sued several defendants, including the City of Prince George and Four Star Communications, alleging negligence. They contended that Four Star failed to forward the gas leak report, which, had it been acted upon, might have prevented the explosion. As part of the proceedings, the plaintiffs applied for an order compelling Four Star to produce its server for forensic examination, arguing that the server might contain deleted or missing files relevant to the call Ms. McGivern claimed to have made.

Four Star's defense and evidence

Four Star opposed the application, arguing that it had already produced all relevant records, including an audio file of a call made by Ms. McGivern on August 21 at 6:20 a.m., which did not mention a gas leak. Instead, the call was about disorderly behavior at Civic Plaza. They supported this with internal notes created by the call operator and corroborated by technical staff who searched the server. They argued that the plaintiffs' request for a forensic search was speculative and would violate the privacy of unrelated third-party data on the server.

The court’s analysis and decision

Justice Kirchner dismissed the application, ruling that Four Star had met its disclosure obligations. The court found that the evidence presented—including the audio file and internal call log—was reliable and demonstrated that the plaintiffs were mistaken in their recollection of the call's contents. The court emphasized that civil litigation is governed by a standard of balance of probabilities, not certainty, and found that the plaintiffs failed to meet the high threshold necessary to justify an intrusive forensic search of a server.

The judge referred to relevant legal precedents, particularly the decisions in Chadwick, Sonepar, and Minichiello, which outline the rare and exceptional circumstances under which such production orders might be granted. None of those conditions were met here. The court also highlighted concerns over the privacy of unrelated data on Four Star’s server.

Costs and final order

The court awarded costs to Four Star Communications Inc. for this application, specifying that they would receive costs “in any event of the cause,” meaning regardless of how the overall litigation is eventually resolved. No damages were awarded at this procedural stage, as the matter of liability and compensation remains unresolved.

In summary, the plaintiffs’ application was denied, and Four Star successfully defended its position without having to submit to a forensic examination of its data systems.