I wrote about this case on the basis of a short summary of the judgment – see Case law at last on scope of reasonable search. In summary, I described it as important not because it made any new law or clarified any rule, but because it showed judicial involvement in applying a perfectly clear set of rules to the practical problems of assessing proportionality.
The full judgment is now on BAILLII. I am grateful to Peg Duncan, a member of the Steering Committee and the Editorial Board of Sedona Conference Working Group 7 (Sedona Canada), for spotting it before I did and drawing it to my attention. We are, I think, seeing a new phase of international co-operation on this subject as we all face the same concerns about the costs of electronic discovery / disclosure. Canada has been one of the more forward sources of thinking on the subject.
The terms of reference of Lord Justice Jackson’s review of civil costs specifically include comparing the costs regime in England & Wales with those of other jurisdictions. Canada is likely to be one of them.
A glance at the Digicel judgment shows that it covers more aspects than the brief summary which I used for my first report. More will follow on this.