IN
THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Date: 20100111

Docket:
M94715

Registry: New Westminster

Between:

Juan Lledo

Plaintiff

And

Michael John Bolam also known as
Michael Bolam

Defendant

Before: Master Caldwell

Reasons for Judgment

[1]            
This is an application by the defendant for
disclosure of various financial materials which he submits are relevant to the plaintiff’s
claim for loss of income.

[2]            
The matter arises from a motor vehicle accident
which occurred on October 29, 2004.  Liability for the accident has been
admitted.  The major area of contention surrounds the extent and type of income
loss which the plaintiff alleges he has suffered.

[3]            
The plaintiff is the principal shareholder, CEO
and operating mind behind two related and closely held companies; he receives a
salary apparently related to the services which he provides for the companies
in addition to which he receives dividend income related to the profits of the
companies.  The plaintiff alleges that he has lost salary income due to his
inability to perform his regular services for the companies.  He also alleges
that his inability to be involved with the companies has compromised their
profitability and has thus resulted in a reduction in his dividend income and
his participation in the overall profits of the companies.  The companies
themselves are not parties to the litigation and thus are not themselves making
any claim for financial loss as a result of the injuries to the plaintiff and
the related interference with his performance for and availability to the
corporate operations.

[4]            
Not surprisingly, the defendant submits that if
the plaintiff intends to pursue such claims he should have access to the full
range of corporate financial documents in order that he may have a forensic accountant
examine them to provide a response to the plaintiff’s claim.  The plaintiff
admits that most of the documents sought by the defendant are or may be
relevant, but he raises three main objections:

1.         They
are so extensive that the plaintiff requires at least a further 180 days to
produce the material;

2.         They do not exist or are not
available to the plaintiff;

3.         They relate to
records of non-parties including employees of the companies and therefore
breach or offend against various privacy interests of those individuals.

[5]            
It is worth noting that neither of the companies
filed any response materials opposing the application.  The plaintiff appeared
with his counsel at the application but also spoke directly on behalf of the
companies.  He indicated that the companies had not received notice of the
application and said further that this may have occurred because the office
which served as the registered and records office for the companies had moved
across the hall or to another part of the building.  He was unaware as to
whether the corporate office had filed the required notice of change of
registered and records office.  The defendant’s counsel provided proof of
delivery to the registered and records office disclosed by his search of the
corporate registry.  Accordingly, I am satisfied that the companies had the
required notice of the application and failed to respond.

[6]            
The plaintiff’s wife was also served and
appeared in person.  The defendant seeks her tax returns and T-4 statements for
the years 2000 to 2007 inclusive.  Given that the plaintiff’s wife is employed
by the companies and receives salary from them the defendant wishes to
determine whether additional income was paid to her for the years following the
accident while the payments to the plaintiff were reduced or eliminated.  Mrs.
Lledo opposed producing her tax returns but did not oppose producing her T-4
statements for the requested years; the defendant agreed with this compromise
and accordingly that order will go with Mrs. Lledo having 21 days to produce
the documents.

[7]            
Given the nature of the loss claimed by the plaintiff,
I am of the view that all but a very few of the requests made by the defendant
are appropriate.  Due to the extent of the requests I will address only the
limits on the disclosure sought.

[8]            
The T-4 information relating to the employees
will be provided for the years 2002 to 2007 however all information which could
lead to the identification of an individual employee (name, SIN, etc) will be
redacted from the records and each individual employee will be assigned a
specific and unique number such that the employee’s income may be charted over
the period in question without actually identifying the employee.

[9]            
The particulars of past wage loss will be
provided within 21 days.

[10]        
The items for which the plaintiff has sought
additional time (1a, 2a, b, d, e, i, j, m, q, w and y) are ordered to be
provided within 21 days of this order.  While I accept the plaintiff’s
submission that the documentation is extensive, the fact is that the original
request for this information was made a year ago and relates to the type of
documents which the plaintiff will have to produce and rely upon in order to
establish the loss which he alleges he has suffered.  In addition, if the plaintiff
is given a further 180 days to produce the material, it will not be available
to the defendant in time to have an expert review them and provide an opinion
in time as provided by the rules.

[11]        
The other items requested, and which the plaintiff
asserts are not available or do not exist (2 c, g, k, l, o, r, s, t, v and 4)
will be subject to the following order:

1.       The plaintiff
will produce such documents or responses within 21 days of this order;

2.       In the event that
any such documents or responses are not available for production, the plaintiff
will provide his affidavit or an affidavit sworn by an authorized
representative of the company from which the material is sought detailing the
efforts and attempts undertaken to obtain the material and verifying that no
such material exist, are available or will be tendered as evidence by the plaintiff
at trial.

3.       The time range governing
disclosure will be from January 2002 forward to the end date sought in the
motion.

[12]        
All other matters (1 b, 2 h, n, p, u, x, 3 and
5-10 inclusive) have been resolved by counsel and I am advised that no orders
are necessary; those matters not dealt with above will stand adjourned
generally.

[13]        
The defendant has been almost entirely
successful in this application and accordingly will be entitled to his costs in
any event of the cause.

“Master
Caldwell”