When Fraud Demands Disclosure: Norwich Orders and Rule 30.10
In Ontario, it is common for courts to order individuals or organizations, who are not directly involved in a dispute, to produce records such as text messages, emails, or financial records. These orders are often sought when a party suspects that fraud has taken place.
These requests can place a heavy burden on third parties, especially when the underlying dispute has little (if anything) to do with them. To manage this, courts have developed specific legal tools that allow parties to obtain evidence while balancing the rights and obligations of those asked to produce it.
The litigation lawyers at Walker Law are well versed in representing clients on both sides of these situations: assisting clients in obtaining such orders, and helping clients comply with them when they are required to produce records, all while safeguarding their interests.
Obtaining Authentic Records: Norwich Orders vs Rule 30.10
In Ontario, litigants have options to investigate the authenticity of evidence when they suspect the other side is using fraudulent records, emails, or text messages. Both Norwich Orders and Rule 30.10 motions allow a party to obtain records from third parties, such as phone or internet service providers and financial institutions. The difference lies in timing and purpose.
Norwich orders can be used before a lawsuit starts to determine whether a cause of action (the right to sue) exists or to determine who should be sued. For example, a Norwich order may be used to find the true identity of the sender of an allegedly fraudulent text message.
Rule 30.10 motions are used during an active lawsuit to require a third party who is not involved in the lawsuit to produce certain records or documents. For example, if an opposing party produces screenshots of transaction records which a party thinks are fraudulent, they can ask the court to order the financial institution of the opposition party to produce their records for that customer to prove authenticity.
Courts in Ontario have confirmed that Norwich orders are given before lawsuits start, while rule 30.10 motions are made within ongoing lawsuits.[1]
Below is a more detailed breakdown of these two processes for obtaining disclosure.
Norwich Orders: Identifying Wrongdoers
Norwich orders originate from a 1974 decision by the House of Lords (the highest court in the UK), titled Norwich Pharmacal Co. v. Customs and Excise Commissioners.[2]
The Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) has laid out the requirements to get a Norwich Order. To get a Norwich order, a litigant must prove that:
- They have a genuine claim against the unknown wrongdoer;
- The third party they’re seeking information from is connected to the issue – in other words, they can’t just be a completely innocent bystander;
- That third party is the only realistic source of the information needed;
- The third party will be reimbursed for their costs of providing the information sought; and
- The public interest in getting the truth is stronger than the privacy rights at stake.[3]
Norwich Orders are increasingly used in cases involving digital elements and have become a strong tool for defamation and fraud litigators. For instance, the SCC has stated that when someone is being defamed or defrauded by an anonymous person, they can ask the court to order an internet service provider to reveal the perpetrator.[4]
Rule 30.10 Motions: Verifying Record Authenticity
Rule 30.10 motions are used during a lawsuit to require that a third party, who is not involved in the lawsuit, to produce certain records or documents. The Ontario Court of Appeal in Ontario (AG) v. Ballard Estate[5] outlined key factors that a court needs to consider before granting a rule 30.10 motion, including:
- With respect to the importance of the documents to the case:
- Whether it’s fair to get the documents during the discovery stage instead of waiting until trial; and
- Whether the other side has already given enough information or evidence, and if not, whether that is their fault that they haven’t done so.
- From the perspective of the non-party:
- Whether the documents, or the same information, can be found somewhere else, that may be easier to access; and
- The non-party’s connection to the dispute – if the non-party is closely linked to the party opposing production, or if they have an interest in the dispute, they’re more likely to be ordered to produce documents than if they were a true stranger to the case.
Courts have applied Rule 30.10 to compel internet service providers to disclose subscriber information, even where plaintiffs only had an IP address.[6] When facing fraudulent text messages or financial records, this remedy can be used to obtain objective records from service providers that confirm whether the disputed messages were actually sent.
Key Takeaways
Norwich Orders and Rule 30.10 motions are powerful tools that shape how evidence is obtained in litigation. They can be used to uncover critical records or, on the other hand, impose significant obligations on those required to produce them.
At Walker Law, our litigation lawyers have experience representing clients on both sides of these situations: pursuing orders to secure key evidence, and advising non-parties who are ordered to comply. In each case, we focus on protecting our clients’ interests while ensuring the process is handled fairly and efficiently.
Tags: Fraud Litigation, Commercial Litigation, and Civil Litigation
[1] Lesser v. Meta Platforms Inc. et. al, 2025 ONSC 3778 (CanLII) at paras 8-11; Amphenol Canada Corp. v. Sundaram, 2019 ONCA 932 (CanLII) at para 23; Canadian Tire Corporation, Limited v. Eaton Equipment Ltd., 2025 ONCA 543 (CanLII) at para 13
[2] Norwich Pharmacal Co. v. Customs and Excise Commissioners, [1974] AC 133
[3] Rogers Communications Inc. v. Voltage Pictures, LLC, 2018 SCC 38 (CanLII) at para 18
[4] Google Inc. v. Equustek Solutions Inc., 2017 SCC 34 (CanLII) at para 31
[5] Ontario (Attorney General) v. Stavro, 1995 CanLII 3509 at para 15
[6] Lesser v. Meta Platforms Inc. et. al, 2025 ONSC 3778 at para 15