The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order of a motions judge who declined to order the defendants to answer certain questions refused on discovery and cross-examination.
The underlying action involved a dispute over a shotgun buy/sell agreement between two brothers and subsequent property transfers.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's decision on relevance, and concluding that the issues did not transcend the interests of the parties to warrant appellate consideration.
