The plaintiff, an American citizen residing in Georgia and unable to enter Canada due to a criminal record, brought a motion for examinations for discovery to be conducted by video conference.
The defendant opposed, arguing for in-person examination to assess credibility or, alternatively, for plaintiff's counsel to participate by video while defendant's counsel attended in person.
The court granted the plaintiff's motion, finding that video conferencing was the most just, cost-effective, and expeditious method, consistent with the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The court emphasized that the defendant failed to provide evidence of the plaintiff's lack of credibility or any disadvantage from a video examination.