Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-17-00584735

MOTION HEARD: 20190131

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Monica Wyszynski, Plaintiff

AND:

Walsham L Debidin and Goonwantie Devi Debidin, Defendants

BEFORE: Master B. McAfee

COUNSEL: M. Borgo, Counsel for the Moving Parties, the Defendants L. Goldstein, Counsel for the Responding Party, the Plaintiff

HEARD: January 31, 2019

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] On January 31, 2019, the parties attended before me on the defendants’ motion for answers to questions refused and questions taken under advisement on the plaintiff’s examination for discovery held on July 28, 2016, and September 6, 2016.

[2] The parties agree that under advisement no. 1 (Q. 467, P. 118) from the September 6, 2016, examination is no longer at issue.

[3] What follows are my rulings on the questions refused and questions taken under advisement that were argued on January 31, 2019. The numbers and question and page references are taken from the Form 37C chart.

Examination for Discovery held on July 28, 2016

[4] Refusal no. 1 (Q. 19, P. 7): I am satisfied that this question is relevant based on the pleadings and in particular based on paragraphs 8, 10 and 14 of the statement of claim. The question shall be answered.

[5] Refusal no. 3 (Q. 96, P. 20): I am not satisfied of the relevance of this question based on the pleadings. The question need not be answered.

[6] Refusal No. 5 (Q. 258, P. 48): The plaintiff was involved in another motor vehicle accident seven months after the within accident. I am satisfied that this question is relevant based on the pleadings and in particular based on paragraphs 8 to 15 of the statement of claim and paragraphs 9 and 10 of the statement of defence. The question shall be answered.

Examination for Discovery held on September 6, 2016

[7] Refusal no. 1 (Q. 691, P. 193): The plaintiff’s evidence is that she has been treated for depression and anxiety for many years (see Q. 690, P. 192). The plaintiff’s medical documentation indicates that the plaintiff has had issues with depression from at least June 2009 (see exhibit J to the affidavit of S. Patel). I am satisfied that this question is not overly broad and is relevant based on the pleadings and in particular based on paragraphs 8 and 10 of the statement of claim and paragraphs 9 and 10 of the statement of defence. The question shall be answered.

[8] Under Advisement no. 1 (Q. 30, P. 11): The plaintiff’s evidence is that her daughter assisted with additional housekeeping tasks after the accident (see Q. 29, P. 10). I am satisfied that the question is relevant based on the pleadings and in particular based on paragraphs 8 to 15 of the statement of claim. The question is also proper pursuant to Rule 31.06(2). An email address has been provided. The defendants confirm that the plaintiff is not being asked to locate the person if the plaintiff is unaware of the person’s whereabouts. A last known municipal address and last known phone number shall be provided.

[9] Under Advisement no. 2 (Q. 36, P.12): The plaintiff’s evidence is that she was in a relationship with her former partner at the time of the accident (see Q. 31-36, P. 11-12). See ruling with respect to under advisement no. 1 (Q. 30, P. 11). A last known municipal address and last known phone number shall be provided.

[10] As noted in my handwritten endorsement of January 31, 2019, argument was completed on all outstanding issues save for under advisement no. 4 from the July 28, 2016, examination for discovery. Manulife will be put on notice of the relief in this regard. The relief with respect to under advisement no. 4 and costs is adjourned to my regular motions list of March 26, 2019.

Master B. McAfee

Date: February 4, 2019