On a refusals motion arising from a pending leave motion under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act, the court considered the proper scope of cross-examination and documentary production under s. 138.8.
The court reiterated that pre-leave examinations are narrower than discoveries and are intended to prevent speculative securities claims from turning into discovery-like rummaging through corporate and non-party records.
One question directed to a mine planner about his understanding of any accelerated introduction of cement grout support packs was ordered answered because it went to the central factual dispute.
All other disputed questions were upheld as refused on grounds of irrelevance, overbreadth, improper documentary discovery, or litigation privilege.
