F. Chorley

The third party insurer brought a motion under Rule 31.10 for leave to examine the plaintiffs as non-parties in each other's related actions regarding their observations of the other occupants during a motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiffs had previously refused these questions on the basis of relevance to their individual actions, and a prior motion to compel answers was dismissed with an invitation to bring the motion under Rule 31.10.

The court granted the motion, finding that the questions were relevant to damages and credibility, and that the plaintiffs' narrow approach to relevance frustrated the discovery process and the principle of proportionality.

The defendant, Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to answer undertakings and questions refused during an examination for discovery.

The plaintiff claimed $700,000 in pecuniary damages.

The Master found that the plaintiff had not made best efforts to answer several undertakings, including providing OHIP summaries and motel receipts.

The Master also ordered the plaintiff to answer the refusals, finding them relevant to the economic loss claim and not offending the principle of proportionality.

The motion was granted, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay $1,500 in costs.