When the commercial landlord's counsel reviewed the transcript of the questioning session held in a small town in Alberta during early 2023, the scale of the compliance failure became undeniable: 14 questions refused out of 23 posed, 8 undertakings given but none fulfilled within the 30-day period, and the regional logistics company's operations manager offering explanations that ranged from vague corporate procedure to outright stonewalling. The landlord had claimed $340,000 in unpaid rent, restoration costs, and damages relating to the 45,000-square-foot warehouse facility, while the tenant counterclaimed $185,000 for wrongful lease termination, and now the discovery process had ground to a halt. The question was no longer whether the discovery obligations had been breached — they had — but what remedies were available to compel compliance, and whether the conduct warranted the most severe sanction available: striking the tenant's pleadings entirely. This lesson examines the remedial architecture that governs discovery non-compliance in Alberta, the procedural requirements for bringing applications to enforce compliance, and the circumstances under which courts will impose sanctions up to and including the dismissal of claims or striking of defences.
The Alberta Rules of Court establish a graduated hierarchy of remedies for discovery non-compliance, reflecting the principle that litigation should be decided on its merits whenever reasonably possible, while simultaneously ensuring that parties cannot gain tactical advantage by frustrating the discovery process. Rule 5.37 provides the primary mechanism for seeking court intervention when a party fails to answer questions properly, refuses questions without justification, or neglects to fulfill undertakings given during examination for discovery. The rule permits a party to apply to the court for an order compelling answers to questions that were improperly refused, requiring compliance with undertakings that remain outstanding, or imposing costs as a consequence of non-compliance. Beyond these baseline remedies, the Rules provide for more severe sanctions where the non-compliance is serious, persistent, or calculated to obstruct the litigation process. The foundational premise is that discovery obligations are not suggestions or courtesies extended between adversaries; they are mandatory duties imposed by the Rules of Court, breach of which engages the court's inherent jurisdiction to manage its process and ensure that trials proceed on the basis of full disclosure rather than strategic concealment.