David Olevson

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel answers to follow-up questions posed in a written examination for discovery, following an earlier oral examination and a previous court order regarding refusals.

The underlying action involves an alleged assault in the defendant bank's ATM vestibule.

The court held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to conduct a full written discovery after an oral discovery without leave, but were permitted to ask reasonable follow-up questions arising from undertakings and refusals.

The court applied the principle of proportionality, limiting the scope of questions primarily to the specific branch where the incident occurred, and provided a detailed schedule ruling on each of the 40 disputed questions.

The applicants sought orders under section 61 of the CCAA to recognize and give effect in Canada to two orders made in their US Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings.

The US orders established a claims bar date and discharged claims not filed by that date.

The applicants sought to use these orders to bar the respondents' claims in an ongoing Ontario tort action.

The court dismissed the application, holding that the applicants should seek enforcement of the US orders within the specific Ontario action rather than seeking a general recognition order under section 61 of the CCAA.

This approach allows the court in the action to assess the equities on a party-by-party basis.