Background:

• Claim: Wrongful dismissal. Dawkins claims he was an employee of Precision and was wrongfully terminated.
• Defense: Precision asserts Dawkins was not an employee but operated as an independent contractor through his company, Prompt Express Ltd.

Motion:

• Defendant’s Request: Precision sought to strike Dawkins' statement of claim for failure to comply with documentary discovery obligations or to compel a better affidavit of documents.
• Plaintiff’s Position: Dawkins argued the motion was disproportionate and unnecessary.

Key Points:

1. Discovery Compliance:

   • Dawkins failed to provide complete and timely documents as agreed in the discovery plan, specifically business records, mitigation efforts, and tax returns.
   • Precision argued this non-compliance was deliberate, while Dawkins cited challenges in understanding and collecting documents.

2. Court’s Analysis:

   • The court emphasized the importance of full disclosure in civil litigation.
   • Dawkins' explanations were deemed unconvincing and self-serving.
   • Non-compliance could not be excused, as Dawkins had a reasonable opportunity to cure it but failed to do so.

3. Decision:

   • The court granted Precision’s motion but allowed Dawkins a further opportunity to comply.
   • Dawkins was ordered to serve a better affidavit of documents by July 31, 2024, and complete examinations for discovery by January 31, 2025.

Costs:

• Parties were encouraged to settle costs amicably; otherwise, costs submissions would be made via a case conference. No amount specified in the document.

Conclusion:

• Outcome: The motion to strike was denied. Dawkins must comply with the revised documentary production and discovery schedule.
• Implications: This decision highlights the stringent requirements for documentary disclosure in civil litigation and the potential consequences of non-compliance.