What is the impact of the failure to produce documents from a private investigator?

Regarding the failure to produce documents, the Plaintiffs rely on the decision in Laface v. McWilliams (2005), 22 C.P.C. (6th) 98 (B.C.S.C.), where Kirkpatrick J., as she then was, stated: However, it was the revelation of the private investigator reports, and my order that they be produced forthwith, that led to a cascade of evidence without which the hotel's professed stance as the model commercial host would have gone unchallenged. (at para. 32) ... At worst, I can infer that there was a deliberate intention to suppress the evidence (including from the hotel's trial counsel). At best, it demonstrates foolhardy recklessness. In either case, it is the kind of reprehensible conduct that is deserving of reproof. I conclude that this failure to disclose critical documents, standing alone, is deserving of an award of special costs against the hotel. Had this information (not just the private investigator reports) gone undisclosed, I have no doubt that the balance of probabilities would have favoured the hotel. Such non-disclosure simply cannot be condoned. (at paras. 38-39)