Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute involves whether questions about property acquisitions by related companies are relevant and permissible in discovery.

• The uniqueness of the subject properties, particularly their CAM zoning and intended use for an auto mall, is contested.

• Mitigation of damages by the plaintiffs through acquisition of alternative properties is a key evidentiary issue.

• Confidentiality and business privacy are raised as objections to disclosure of related companies’ property transactions.

• The breadth and proportionality of discovery under the Supreme Court Civil Rules are examined.

• The court considers whether a representative can be compelled to answer questions about knowledge gained as a representative of related entities.

Facts of the case

Triple Z Property Holdings Ltd. and West One Enterprises Ltd. are the plaintiffs in this action against Ercon Holdings Ltd., with Eternity Properties Inc. as defendant by counterclaim. The dispute concerns three contracts of purchase and sale (“CPSs”) for adjoining undivided bare lots in Abbotsford, recently rezoned for commercial use, specifically for an automobile vehicle dealership or similar use (“CAM”). Ercon was the vendor under the CPSs. Eternity was the originally named purchaser for two of the CPSs, which were assigned to Triple Z as purchaser. West One is the purchaser of the third lot. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants breached the CPSs by failing to complete certain site-servicing work prior to the outside date, which they say was September 23, 2024, after various extensions were granted. The plaintiffs also allege that the defendants acted in bad faith in performance of their obligations under the CPSs. The relief sought includes specific performance on the basis that these properties are unique by virtue of the CAM zoning, specific to a proposed expansion of the Langley Auto Mall, or, in the alternative, damages for breach of the CPSs.

Issues arising in discovery and procedural context

On July 4, 2025, the representative of Triple Z, Mr. Chohan, was examined for discovery. During the examination, counsel for the defendant sought to examine Mr. Chohan as to other properties that had been purchased by the plaintiffs subsequent to the outside date, to investigate whether the plaintiffs mitigated their damages and whether they were able to or did obtain alternative or replacement property such that specific performance would not be the appropriate remedy. Mr. Chohan initially answered that “we bought lots of properties,” but later clarified in an affidavit that since September 28, 2023, Triple Z and Eternity had not bought any properties, and that the properties he referred to were bought by other companies in which he is involved. He refused to provide additional information about those properties, citing privacy and confidentiality. Plaintiffs’ counsel objected to the relevance and breadth of the questions, arguing that the inquiry should be limited to similar properties and that information about unrelated companies was confidential and outside the scope of discovery.

Legal analysis and policy considerations

The application was brought pursuant to Rules 7-2(18) and (25) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, which set out the scope of examination for discovery as any question within the person’s knowledge or means of knowledge regarding any matter, not privileged, relating to a matter in question in the action. The court cited relevant authorities and emphasized that the scope for discovery is broad, and objections should generally be reserved for trial unless clearly irrelevant. The court found that particulars as to replacement property and whether other property that may be suitable or may be argued to be suitable replacements for the subject property that were purchased after the outside date are relevant to the remedy of specific performance and the issue of mitigation in terms of damages if specific performance is not an appropriate remedy. The court also found that information about acquisitions by related companies is relevant, referencing Southcott Estates Inc. v. Toronto Catholic District School Board, 2012 SCC 51 (CanLII), and that confidentiality concerns are mitigated by the implied undertaking of confidentiality in litigation. The court noted that Mr. Chohan’s refusal to identify the related companies prevented the use of other discovery tools and contributed to the need for further discovery.

Outcome and orders

The court granted the orders sought in the notice of application, compelling Mr. Chohan to attend a further examination for discovery to answer the questions in the attached Appendix A to the notice of application without objection and any further questions arising because of those answers. The court commented on the obstructive nature in which the answers were given on discovery and found it appropriate that such comment be by way of costs in any event of the cause. The successful party in this application was Ercon Holdings Ltd. Costs were awarded in any event of the cause, but no specific amount was set for costs at this stage. No damages were awarded in this procedural decision, and the total amount ordered in favor of the successful party cannot be determined at this stage, as only procedural costs were addressed without a specified monetary value.