Can Ontario Courts Order Non-Party Document Production at Discovery?

Can a Court Force a Non-Party Company to Produce Documents in Ontario?

Yes — Ontario courts can order production of documents from a non-party, but only when specific legal conditions are met. This is governed by Rule 30.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and it applies even when the non-party is a related corporation rather than a completely independent third party. The 2026 decision in 2325524 Ontario Inc. v. Roberge, 2026 ONSC 5019 (CanLII), illustrates how courts balance a plaintiff’s need for evidence against the rights of companies that were never named in the lawsuit.

What Is Rule 30.10 and When Does It Apply?

Rule 30.10 is the provision in Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure that allows a court to order document production from someone who is not a party to the lawsuit. To succeed, the party seeking production must show three things: the documents are not privileged, they are relevant to a material issue in the case, and it would be unfair to proceed to trial without them. The “material issue” standard is stricter than the general discovery relevance test — the documents must have a reasonable possibility of being logically probative of an issue that could actually influence the outcome of the case.

What Happened in This Case?

The plaintiff, a solar installation company, sued two corporate defendants and their individual principals over unpaid amounts for work done on solar development projects near Kapuskasing, Ontario. Two other related solar corporations — Owens and Williamson, which had also used the plaintiff’s services but were not named as defendants — had sold their projects to the Town of Kapuskasing. The plaintiff believed that records from those non-party companies would help prove its case, including a disputed loan and the reason payments were allegedly deferred on the named defendants’ projects.

At examinations for discovery, the defendants refused to answer certain questions and produce certain documents. The plaintiff brought a motion to compel answers and production. Several items were resolved before the hearing, but the court had to decide whether to order disclosure of tax records, sale agreements, and financial statements held by the two non-party corporations.

Are Related Corporations Treated as Strangers to the Litigation?

No — when a non-party corporation has a meaningful connection to the defendants, courts treat it differently than a true outsider. The court found that the two non-party corporations were closely enough connected to the defendants that they were not strangers to the litigation. Financial statements for the defendant corporations identified the non-party companies as related entities, and documentary evidence linked one of the individual defendants to both non-party corporations. Because of that nexus, the court found that service on the individual defendant was sufficient to constitute service on the non-party corporations for the purpose of the motion, and that a lower threshold applied when assessing whether production should be ordered.

What Documents Did the Court Actually Order Produced?

The court ordered three categories of production, though it narrowed the scope of what the plaintiff had originally requested. First, it ordered statements confirming the amount of HST owing after the non-party project sales, when input tax credits were processed, and whether any defendant personally paid tax on behalf of the non-party corporations. Second, it ordered production of the full agreements of purchase and sale for both non-party projects, including schedules and amendments. Third, it ordered financial statements for one non-party corporation for 2019 and 2020, along with documentary evidence showing what happened to specific sale proceeds that had passed through an individual defendant’s hands before being transferred to the corporation. The court refused the broader financial records the plaintiff had sought, finding them disproportionate.

What Is the Difference Between Discovery Relevance and Trial Relevance?

Relevance at the discovery stage is broader than relevance at trial. A question or document is relevant for discovery purposes if it makes a fact in issue more or less likely — the threshold is not high. Admissibility is a question for trial, not for discovery. However, even at the discovery stage, relevance is not unlimited. Since 2010 amendments to the Rules, questions must be relevant to a matter actually in issue as defined by the pleadings. Overbroad or speculative requests — sometimes called fishing expeditions — are not permitted, and courts can restrict examinations that are disproportionate to the complexity or value of the case.

What Happens When a Party Wins a Discovery Motion in Ontario?

The successful party on a discovery motion is presumptively entitled to costs under Rule 57.03. In this case, the court awarded the plaintiff $7,500 in costs, reflecting its overall success on the motion. The court did note, however, that some of the complexity arose from the plaintiff’s own decision not to name the related corporations as parties to the motion — a factor that tempered the costs award. This is a practical reminder that procedural choices made early in litigation can affect both the scope of what you can obtain and what you will recover in costs.

Questions and Records to Discuss with a Lawyer

• What documents are held by companies or individuals connected to the opposing party that may be relevant to your claim or defence?
• Have all undertakings given at examinations for discovery been fulfilled, and have any refusals been formally challenged?
• Are there related corporations or individuals who should have been named as parties, and what are the implications of proceeding without them?
• What is the relationship between the non-party and the defendants, and is there documentary evidence — such as financial statements or contracts — that establishes that connection?
• How does the quantum of the claim compare to the cost and scope of the disclosure being sought, and is the request proportionate?

If you have questions about examinations for discovery, document production, or related litigation issues in Ontario, our Ontario litigation lawyers are available to discuss your circumstances. Whether your matter is in the Hamilton or Burlington area or elsewhere in the province, you can reach us through /connect to start a conversation about your situation.

---

This article is automated commentary on a public court decision and is for general information only — not legal advice. Decisions rely on facts unique to each case. If you are affected by a similar issue, contact a lawyer for advice specific to your situation.