The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 34.15 to compel the defendant to answer undertakings and refusals from an examination for discovery arising from a single-vehicle accident.
The court ordered the defendant to answer questions regarding pre-accident health based on an unconditional agreement between counsel.
However, the court dismissed the request to compel answers regarding the defendant's post-accident statements, finding that the questions were directed solely to credibility rather than obtaining facts, applying the Divisional Court's reasoning in Sangaralingam.
