In this motion, the plaintiff moved to compel production of
electronic data and the defendant moved to secure the
plaintiff's computer and to examine the hard drive. This action
arose because the defendant invalidated a bet placed by the
plaintiff and refused to pay the winning award.
The defendant is an English corporation running a website, where
individuals can place bets against each other. A Mr. LeBlanc placed
two bets at 1000:1 odds on both the over and under of the same
basketball game. That meant Mr. LeBlanc was guaranteed to lose
$1,000 for every dollar bet. The bets were accepted by the
plaintiff within minutes, which meant Mr. LeBlanc would lose
It was alleged that the plaintiff's husband, employed by Mr.
LeBlanc to place bets for him, had placed the above two bets on
behalf of Mr. LeBlanc without authorization. The defence also
alleged the plaintiff's husband used a computer on Mr.
LeBlanc's business premise to accept the bets on behalf of the
plaintiff. The defendant invalidated the successful bet placed on
behalf of the plaintiff upon the request by LeBlanc.
The plaintiff sought to compel the defendant to generate a
report itemizing all of the bets ever placed by LeBlanc and the
I.P. addressed used by LeBlanc when those bets were placed. The
purpose was to verify whether the fact that the bets were placed
from the same I.P. address could prove that they were made on the
same computer or from the same location, as well as to verify
whether LeBlanc never placed bets on basketball.
Master Macleod stated the rules dealing with any motion for
production in Kay v Posluns (1989) 71 OR (2d) 238 (HCJ): first
whether the information is relevant and secondly if so, whether the
defendant should be relieved of producing the information because
the demand is unusually onerous and abusive. He concluded that the
court has discretion to order such a report while noting that such
order is more intrusive than ordering document
As the plaintiff refused to disclose what computer she used to
place the bets or to admit the computer was located on
LeBlanc's premise, the defendant moved to preserve the
plaintiff's computer in order to preserve the evidence. Master
Macleod refused to make hypothetical orders and requested the
plaintiff to disclose the location of the computer on which she
placed her bet. The plaintiff subsequently disclosed that it was
located on LeBlanc's premise.
With this answer, there was clearly no need to preserve the
plaintiff's computer. That answer also destroyed the foundation
for the plaintiff's motion. As such, the Master dismissed both
the motion and the cross motion except requiring the defendant to
have its database available pending the final resolution.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The prospect of an internal investigation raises many thorny issues. This presentation will canvass some of the potential triggering events, and discuss how to structure an investigation, retain forensic assistance and manage the inevitable ethical issues that will arise.
From the boardroom to the shop floor, effective organizations recognize the value of having a diverse workplace. This presentation will explore effective strategies to promote diversity, defeat bias and encourage a broader community outlook.
Staying local but going global presents its challenges. Gowling WLG lawyers offer an international roundtable on doing business in the U.K., France, Germany, China and Russia. This three-hour session will videoconference in lawyers from around the world to discuss business and intellectual property hurdles.
It's not often that our little blog intersects with such titanic struggles as the U.S. presidential race – and by using the term "titanic" I certainly don't mean to suggest that anything disastrous is in the future.
J.J. v. C.C., is an interesting case in which the court held that an automotive garage owes a duty to minor children to secure the vehicles on the premises by locking the cars and safely storing the car keys...
In Irwin v. Alberta Veterinary Medical Association, 2015 ABCA 396, the Alberta Court of Appeal found that the "ABVMA" failed to afford procedural fairness to a veterinarian undergoing an incapacity assessment.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).