The defendant brought a motion seeking an order that four co‑plaintiffs be examined for discovery separately and excluded from one another’s examinations.
The plaintiffs alleged detrimental reliance on representations regarding executive retirement benefits and opposed the exclusion order.
The court applied the lighter onus for exclusion of co‑parties at discovery articulated in Sissons v. Olson and subsequent Ontario authorities.
Given that the plaintiffs shared a common interest, would be asked substantially similar questions, and credibility could become an issue regarding representations and reliance, the potential for tailoring evidence justified exclusion.
The motion was granted and an order was made prohibiting disclosure of discovery questions, answers, or transcripts among the plaintiffs until all examinations were completed.
