The appellant appealed a Divisional Court decision that ordered the production of an insurance policy under Rule 30.02(3).
The motion judge had originally refused production, finding the policy was sought for a collateral purpose and that uncontradicted evidence showed the deductible exceeded the claim amount.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the motion judge did not make a palpable and overriding error by relying on uncontradicted affidavit evidence without reading the policy itself.
The Divisional Court's order for production was set aside and the motion judge's decision was restored.
