La Horey

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel answers to questions refused during the cross-examination of the defendant and his father on affidavits filed in support of the defendant's pending motion to discharge a certificate of pending litigation.

The court ordered the defendant to produce his current driver's license as it was relevant to an issue of residence raised by the defendant.

However, the court upheld the refusals regarding the defendant's banking and tax records, finding them irrelevant to the discharge motion and overbroad.

The court also upheld a refusal regarding the defendant's reasons for previously acting in person.

The defendant was awarded partial indemnity costs of $8,500.

The plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action sought to examine for discovery the co-worker whose sexual harassment complaint led to his termination.

The defendant hospital moved under Rule 31.03(2) to substitute a human resources manager as its discovery representative, or alternatively, for the examination to proceed by written questions.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the co-worker had direct knowledge of the critical issue of whether the harassment occurred, and the defendant failed to show that examining the co-worker would be oppressive or that the plaintiff's choice should be displaced.

The defendant employer in a wrongful dismissal action brought a motion under Rule 26.01 to amend its Statement of Defence and Counterclaim to plead after-acquired cause, alleging the plaintiff misled it regarding his involvement in a fraudulent hedge fund.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing the amendments were legally untenable because the employer knew of the allegations before termination.

The court granted the motion, finding the proposed amendments were legally tenable and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate non-compensable prejudice.

The court also ordered limited further discovery on the amendments but denied the plaintiff's request to examine a second corporate representative.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside their noting in default in an action for breach of a loan agreement.

The court found serious issues with the service of the statement of claim, noted the plaintiff's failure to seek an order for substituted service, and observed that the plaintiff precipitously noted the personal defendant in default shortly after indicating a willingness to consider an indulgence.

Applying the test from Intact v Kisel, the court exercised its discretion to set aside the noting in default and granted the defendants leave to deliver a statement of defence.