B.S.A. INVESTORS LTD. v. GANG RANCH LTD., 2003 BCSC 2004

Citation: B.S.A. Investors Ltd. v. Mosly et al Date: 20030403 2003 BCSC 2004 Docket: S004649 Registry: Vancouver IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Oral Reasons for Judgment Master Tokarek April 3, 2003 BETWEEN: B.S.A. INVESTORS LTD. and GANG RANCH LTD. PLAINTIFFS AND: ADEL MOSLY, SAUDI ARABIAN-CANADIAN BUSINESS CORPORATION and DOUGLAS SYMES & BRISSENDEN DEFENDANTS Counsel for Plaintiffs R. Berger Counsel for Defendants Appearing on his own behalf P. Warnett A. Mosly [ 1 ] THE COURT: I think we are right back to where we started from when we commenced this application.

Each party seeks documents from the other. Plaintiffs’ counsel conceded that if the plaintiffs were in possession of any such requested documents, they would be relevant. I infer from what I was told by the defendants that, similarly, any documents they might possess would be relevant in the action against Mr.

Mosly, but Douglas Symes has not been in the production of documents controversy. [ 2 ] Given that all of the documents are relevant, and considering what I have heard about the nature of these documents, and given that each side has no quarrel with producing the documents if they existed, but both sides say they cannot produce any documents because they do not have them, and in light of a document recently produced by Mr. Mosly that would suggest there are, or may be, such other documents, and in light of, if I am entitled to apply any modicum of common sense to this, the assertion by Mr.

Mosly that he sent many receipts for expenses that he had incurred on behalf of the plaintiffs to the plaintiffs for reimbursement, and he wants to see those receipts, I think that each party has made out a case for an order compelling production of the requested documents and verification by way of affidavit. [ 3 ] This is not the first time this matter has been to chambers. It appears it will not be the last time. There are accusations that orders have been made against Mr. Mosly and he has not complied with them. He vehemently denies that. He says he has complied with them fully and produced everything he has.

I think we are at the stage now where pointing fingers and saying, “After you”, comes to an end, and the only way that the court can exercise some control over this is to insist that the plaintiffs supply Mr. Mosly with an affidavit confirming that, in fact, no such documents exist after an exhaustive search for the same. [ 4 ] Similarly, I think the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief sought in their motion, and that Mr.

Mosly provide all the relevant documents he has, and again common sense dictates that he must have some of these documents or, if not, then he should verify under oath in an affidavit on penalty of perjury that he has made an exhaustive search and just does not have them. [ 5 ] So, Douglas Symes’ motion and the plaintiffs’ motion -– I do not think Mr. Mosly has a motion –- are allowed with respect to those items sought today. With respect to the plaintiffs’ motion, it was only items 2 through 7 of the motion that were sought. Those orders will be made.

Douglas Symes’ motion will be allowed in its entirety with the amendments that counsel referred to, deletions of 4 and 2. “Master D. Tokarek”