The plaintiff sought leave to appeal an order of a motions judge that set aside a Master's order requiring affiants to re-attend cross-examinations to answer refusals.
The motions judge had found that the Master erred in principle by improperly applying the principle of proportionality to enlarge the scope of cross-examination beyond what is permissible.
The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's order.
