A Document Sworn Unavailable Turns Up in the Other Side's Box

The situation

Dragan's plan, when the water damage in his unit first became a legal dispute rather than a maintenance request, was simple: get it resolved as fast and as cheaply as possible, take whatever reasonable settlement the condo corporation offered, and get back to his architecture practice. He said as much in the first meeting, more than once, and he meant it; this was not a client looking for a fight, and he wanted that understood from the outset so nobody billed him for a battle he had not asked for.

The damage had started in a shared wall between Dragan's unit and the one above, owned by Zoran, an optometrist who kept unusual hours and was often hard to reach. A plumbing failure somewhere in the building's original construction, never fully diagnosed at the time, had caused water intrusion into Dragan's unit over several months before anyone identified the source with any confidence. Dragan believed the condominium corporation's board, aware of a similar issue in a different unit years earlier, had known the building's plumbing in that section was a recurring risk and had not acted on it in any meaningful way. The corporation denied any prior knowledge and pointed instead to normal wear affecting older infrastructure, a position that, if accepted, would leave most of the repair cost falling on Dragan and Zoran individually rather than on the corporation's insurance and reserve fund, where a known and unaddressed risk would more properly belong.

Dragan retained us with a clear instruction: he did not want a prolonged fight. He wanted the corporation's early settlement offer, in the low six figures against a total dispute value that could reach the high six figures depending on how repair costs and a related unit's damage claim from Vartan, a neighbouring owner also affected by the same plumbing section, were ultimately apportioned, reviewed quickly and accepted if it was defensible on its face. He was, by his own description, someone who found ongoing conflict exhausting and who valued certainty over the possibility of a larger recovery through a longer fight, a preference we took seriously from the start rather than treating as something to be talked out of by default.

The corporation's initial disclosure, provided as part of the standard exchange of relevant documents each side in a lawsuit must swear to under an affidavit of documents, included maintenance records, board minutes, and correspondence relevant to the building's plumbing history going back several years. Nothing in that disclosure mentioned the earlier, similar issue in the other unit that Dragan believed the board already knew about, an issue he had heard about secondhand from another owner but could not personally substantiate. The corporation's affidavit stated, in the section addressing documents once held but no longer in its possession, that no records of any prior similar incident existed or could be located, a statement Dragan, wanting to move quickly, was inclined to simply accept at face value.

What made this urgent

An affidavit of documents is a sworn statement, filed under the court rules governing document disclosure, listing every relevant document a party has, once had, or believes exists but cannot produce. It is not a discretionary summary and it is not simply a starting point for negotiation; a party swears to its completeness under oath, and the other side is entitled to rely on it as the accurate universe of what is available for the case. When Dragan's team requested records from the property management company that had handled the building's maintenance in the years before the current management took over, seeking background for the repair timeline rather than expecting to find anything that would change the shape of the case, one of the documents that came back was an incident report from the earlier, similar plumbing issue the corporation's affidavit had said could not be located anywhere.

The report was dated years before the current dispute and named the same section of the building's plumbing system now at issue in Dragan's unit, described with enough specificity that there was little room to argue it concerned a different, unrelated part of the building. It had been prepared for the board at the time by the property manager then in place and, on its face, appeared to be exactly the kind of document the corporation's affidavit claimed did not exist, raising the immediate question of whether the omission was a genuine oversight from a change in management or something the current board should have caught before swearing to the affidavit's completeness.

This mattered urgently for two separate reasons. First, Dragan was actively considering the corporation's settlement offer, and that offer had been priced, reasonably from the corporation's side, on the assumption that its knowledge of any prior similar issue could not be proven with anything more than secondhand recollection. A document showing the board had been informed of a comparable problem years earlier changed the value of Dragan's claim substantially, because it went directly to whether the corporation had failed to act on a known, documented risk rather than simply facing normal wear it could not reasonably have anticipated or been expected to address sooner.

Second, and more immediately pressing than the first, an affidavit of documents that omits a real, relevant document, whether through oversight or something more deliberate, is not something a court treats lightly. There is a formal process for challenging an affidavit's completeness and compelling a corrected one, but it takes time to bring and time for the other side to respond, and if Dragan had already accepted the settlement offer before the omission surfaced, the opportunity to use this document would likely have been lost entirely, since a settlement generally closes off further discovery on the matter it resolves, regardless of what comes to light afterward.

What we did

1. Paused the settlement discussion before Dragan accepted the corporation's offer, once the third-party document surfaced, to prevent him from closing off his claim entirely before its value could be properly reassessed in light of what the new record showed about the board's actual prior knowledge. That pause cost nothing but a short delay and preserved every option that a signed release would otherwise have shut down permanently.
2. Confirmed the document's authenticity and relevance by verifying it against the property management company's own records custodian directly, establishing that the report was genuine, contemporaneous with the events it described, and squarely covered the same plumbing section now at issue in Dragan's unit, not a tangential or unrelated incident elsewhere in the building. That verification meant the corporation would have no credible basis to dismiss the document as unreliable or misattributed once it was raised formally.
3. Compared the document against the corporation's sworn affidavit of documents line by line to confirm it fell within the categories the affidavit should have disclosed as a matter of course, and that its absence was not explained by any stated exclusion, privilege claim, or other carve-out written into the affidavit itself. That comparison produced a clean, specific gap to put in writing, rather than a vague complaint the corporation's counsel could brush aside as a misunderstanding.
4. Wrote formally to the corporation's counsel setting out the discrepancy in detail, requesting a corrected and supplemented affidavit that addressed the document directly and explained its earlier omission, rather than filing a motion immediately, to give the corporation a fair chance to correct the record and to preserve the more cooperative tone Dragan had said he preferred throughout. This produced a formal written record of the request, useful later even though the motion itself was never needed.
5. Prepared to bring a motion to compel a corrected affidavit if the corporation did not respond adequately within a reasonable period, drafting the supporting materials in parallel with the informal request so that no time would be lost putting the motion before the court if voluntary correction did not happen. Having the motion ready also signalled to the corporation's counsel that the informal request was not an empty gesture.
6. Explained clearly to Dragan why accepting the settlement offer at that stage would be a mistake, walking through in plain terms how the new document changed the strength of his position and what he stood to give up permanently by prioritizing speed over a properly informed decision, since his stated preference for a fast resolution was entirely reasonable but had been formed without this evidence in hand.
7. Reassessed the claim's value with the corrected picture in hand, once the corporation supplemented its affidavit and formally confirmed the earlier incident report, and used the stronger evidentiary position to open a renewed settlement discussion grounded in materially better terms than the original offer had reflected. That reassessment gave Dragan a defensible new figure to negotiate toward, rather than a vague sense that he could probably ask for more.
8. Kept Vartan's counsel informed of the disclosure development once it became clear the corrected affidavit would affect his overlapping claim as well, since coordinating on a shared evidentiary issue avoided the two related files working from inconsistent pictures of the same underlying plumbing history and board knowledge, and let both claims move toward resolution on a consistent factual footing rather than risking two different outcomes on the same underlying facts. That coordination cost little and meant neither file was blindsided by a development in the other.

The outcome

The corporation supplemented its affidavit of documents to include the earlier incident report and a small number of related records once the discrepancy was raised formally, avoiding a contested motion to compel that had been fully prepared and ready to file. With that record now part of the file, the corporation's position that it had no prior knowledge of a similar plumbing issue in that section of the building became difficult to sustain in any serious way, and the settlement discussion resumed on substantially different terms than the ones Dragan had almost accepted weeks earlier.

The revised settlement, reached without a full trial, secured Dragan a recovery well above the corporation's original offer, reflecting the stronger claim that the earlier incident report supported once it was properly in the record. Vartan's related claim over the unit above, which raised similar questions about the same plumbing history and the same section of the building, benefited from the same disclosure, since the corrected affidavit applied to the underlying dispute generally rather than to Dragan's individual file alone, giving Vartan's own negotiation more weight than it would otherwise have carried.

Dragan got the outcome he originally wanted, a resolved dispute without a prolonged fight, but not on the timeline or terms he had been ready to accept before the document surfaced from a source neither he nor the corporation's own affidavit had accounted for. He acknowledged afterward that his instinct to settle quickly had been reasonable given what he knew at the time, and that the delay caused by pausing to verify the new document, a matter of a few weeks rather than months, was time well spent against what accepting the original, undervalued offer would have cost him in the end. He also said he had not fully appreciated, until it was explained to him, how final a settlement actually is, and how little room it would have left to revisit the numbers once the missing document turned up regardless.

What you can learn from this