Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Plaintiffs sought production of bank account statements from three groups of financial institutions pursuant to Rule 7-1(18) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, targeting accounts held by the defendants and non-party Dionne Chenne.
   
• Central to the application was the plaintiffs' claim that they paid an extra $272,410.24 over the fixed price contract, and sought to trace those funds into properties personally owned by Ryan Lovelle Chenne.
   
• Both affidavits filed in support of the application were defective, as each indicated it was "sworn (or affirmed)" without specifying which method bound the conscience of the affiant.
   
• Substantial portions of the Wang Affidavit, filed November 26, 2025, constituted impermissible splitting of the plaintiffs' case rather than genuine reply evidence.
   
• Rule 7-1(22) was found to apply to third-party document production under Rule 7-1(18), warranting postponement of any renewed application until after the defendants' intended Dismissal Application is heard and determined.
   
• Evidentiary insufficiency, combined with the sweeping and invasive nature of the records sought, led the court to dismiss the application while granting liberty to reapply with proper evidence.

Facts of the case

The plaintiffs, Yun Qin and Rong Wang, entered into a contractual arrangement for the renovation of their existing home and the construction of a new living area and 3-car garage on their property. They claim to have entered into an oral contract with Ryan Lovelle Chenne ("Mr. Chenne") and, on the same day, a written contract with Lovelle Development Ltd. (the "Company") on identical terms. While the Notice of Civil Claim pleads that Mr. Chenne carries on business as Lovelle Design Centre ("LDC"), the Response to Civil Claim clarifies that LDC is a sole proprietorship owned by the Company, and that Mr. Chenne is merely a director of the Company who denies entering into any contract with the plaintiffs in his personal capacity. The plaintiffs allege that the work was deficient and incomplete and that the defendants demanded — and the plaintiffs paid — an extra $272,410.24 over and above the fixed price contract, some of which was paid directly to Dionne Chenne ("Ms. Chenne"), spouse of Mr. Chenne, at his direction. The plaintiffs plead breach of contract, negligence, deceptive practices resulting in unjust enrichment, and further allege that the Company is the alter ego of Mr. Chenne — that he used personal and corporate bank accounts interchangeably and treated the Company's income and assets as his own.

The application and records sought

To trace the funds they paid, the plaintiffs sought production of all account statements of Mr. Chenne, Ms. Chenne, the Company, and LDC from June 2021 to the present date, from three different groups of financial institutions (the "Records"). By letter dated July 24, 2025, the plaintiffs had demanded production of a dozen categories of documents from the defendants pursuant to Rules 7-1(10) and (11), including a subset of the Records. The defendants produced many of the requested documents but did not respond to the demand for bank account statements. On October 30, 2025, the plaintiffs filed the within application seeking the Records. By letter dated November 7, 2025, the defendants objected to production on the grounds of relevance.

Applicable rules and legal framework

Rule 7-1(18) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules permits the court, on application under Rule 8-1 brought on notice to a non-party and parties of record, to order production, inspection, and copying of a document in the possession or control of a non-party, or the preparation of a certified copy. The test under Rule 7-1(18) is one of relevance, and some evidentiary support is generally required to guard against unwarranted "fishing expeditions": Kaladjian v. Jose, 2012 BCSC 357 at para. 62. Importantly, the formal demand requirements of subrules 7-1(10) and (11) do not apply to an application under subrule (18): Mann v. Jagpal, 2020 BCSC 1919 at para. 44.

The court's reasoning and analysis

The court found the evidentiary support for the application to be lacking. The only evidence referenced in the notice of application was a legal assistant's affidavit attaching correspondence between counsel and copies of various documents from the parties' lists of documents — found insufficient to establish the relevance of the Records. Additional evidence was provided by plaintiff Rong Wang by affidavit filed November 26, 2025 (the "Wang Affidavit"), offered as reply to the responding affidavit of Mr. Chenne affirmed November 21, 2025. However, the court found that except for paragraphs 13 and 14, the Wang Affidavit was not truly in the nature of reply and instead constituted impermissible splitting of the plaintiffs' case. Further, both affidavits were defective: each indicated it was "sworn (or affirmed)" without specifying which method bound the conscience of the affiant, as discussed in PKS V. ANR, 2024 BCSC 2110 at paras. 75–89. While the court has discretion to allow defective affidavits, Associate Judge Hughes declined to exercise that discretion here, given that the order sought was sweeping in scope — it would capture records relating to payments for other clients and other projects unrelated to this litigation, and would expose highly sensitive personal information and spending habits of both Mr. Chenne and Ms. Chenne, a non-party.

The court also addressed the defendants' submission that the application should be postponed pursuant to Rule 7-1(22) until after the hearing and determination of their intended application to dismiss the claims against Mr. Chenne personally (the "Dismissal Application"). The Dismissal Application had not yet been filed, although the possibility was first raised in December 2024, with counsel indicating they expected to bring it in the fall of 2026 following examinations for discovery in early summer. Rule 7-1(22) was found to apply to third-party document production under Rule 7-1(18), not only to party discovery. Applying the four-part test from Belzberg v. North American Trust Co., [1994] B.C.J. No. 3326 (S.C.) at para. 22, the court found that the Records were only relevant to the plaintiffs' claims against Mr. Chenne personally — specifically the misappropriation of funds, unjust enrichment, and tracing remedy claims. If the defendants succeeded on the Dismissal Application, the Records would no longer be relevant to the remaining claims. Given the sensitive and personal nature of the information and the balance of prejudice, the court found the prejudice to the defendants in disclosing the Records outweighed the prejudice to the plaintiffs in delaying such disclosure.

Ruling and overall outcome

Associate Judge Hughes dismissed the application in its entirety, with liberty to the plaintiffs to reapply with proper evidence. Any renewed application for production of the Records is not to be brought until after the Dismissal Application has been heard and determined, provided that such application is served not later than September 30, 2026, or such other date as the parties may agree; if the defendants do not serve the Dismissal Application by September 30, 2026, the plaintiffs may reapply for the Records. The defendants, as the successful parties, were awarded their costs of the application. No specific quantum of costs was stated in the decision.