The defendant in a construction lien action brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to answer undertakings and questions taken under advisement during examinations for discovery.
The plaintiff argued the defendant required leave under the former Construction Lien Act to bring the motion.
The court held that leave was implicitly granted by the discovery plan and was necessary to expedite the resolution of the dispute.
Applying the principles of proportionality and relevance, the court ordered the plaintiff to answer the majority of the outstanding questions, noting that undertakings must be honoured once given.
The court declined to order answers to questions regarding document authenticity and the plaintiff's opinion on a report prepared by the defendant's consultant.
