Carlo Di Carlo

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 31.03(2)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking an order requiring the plaintiff to examine a different corporate representative for discovery rather than the employee selected by the plaintiff.

The dispute arose in the context of a family and corporate conflict involving claims for wrongful dismissal and oppression under the Business Corporations Act.

The court held that the examining party has a prima facie right to choose the corporate representative to be examined, subject only to limited judicial intervention where the selection is inappropriate or oppressive.

The defendants failed to demonstrate that the chosen employee lacked sufficient knowledge, could not inform himself, or that the examination would be unduly oppressive.

The motion to substitute the witness was dismissed and costs were awarded against the moving parties.