ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
B E T W E E N:
JAMES ALEXANDER KAY
Appellant
- and -
THE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA
Respondent
Counsel:
In Person
Deborah McPhadden, for the Respondent
HEARD at Toronto: September 24, 2008
JANET WILSON J.: (Orally)
1The motion brought by the Law Society to quash the summons to witnesses is granted.
2I do not believe it is appropriate to be examining either the counsel or the investigators in this matter.
3The proposed questioning smacks of a fishing expedition. Mr. Kay proposes to question the Discipline counsel as to her motivation for decisions made in his disciplinary hearing. This is just not proper questioning in accordance with the test of relevance in Rule 39 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
4Mr. Kay, you can make your arguments on the eighth of October and if the Judge hearing that matter on the eighth thinks that there is anything specific and narrow that should be answered then the Judge can specify those questions and the answers can be done in writing.
5At this point in time, to allow general questioning of discipline counsel and investigators of The Law Society, I think is inappropriate and would be an abuse of process.
JANET WILSON J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: September 24, 2008
Date of Release: September 26, 2008
COURT FILE NO.: 323/08
DATE: 20080924
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
B E T W E E N:
JAMES ALEXANDER KAY
Appellant
- and -
THE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA
Respondent
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JANET WILSON J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: September 24, 2008
Date of Release: September 26, 2008