The defendant brought a motion seeking to substitute its General Manager as its representative for examination for discovery instead of its President, who was selected by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff, a former employee, argued that the President was the only person with firsthand knowledge of the contract negotiations at the heart of the wrongful dismissal action.
Associate Justice Abrams denied the motion, finding that the President possessed sufficient knowledge of the matters in dispute and that examining him would not be oppressive.
The court concluded that substituting the representative would prejudice the plaintiff by filtering key evidence through a third party.
