The defendant municipality appealed an interlocutory order of an Associate Justice granting the plaintiff leave under Rule 31.03(2)(b) to conduct a limited, one-hour examination for discovery of a second corporate representative, supplemented by up to two pages of written questions.
The appellant argued the Associate Justice committed palpable and overriding errors by relying on a non-existent agreement between the parties regarding a hybrid examination process and by misapplying the strict test for examining a second corporate representative.
The court found the Associate Justice correctly applied the test from Fischer v. IG Investment Management Ltd., made findings grounded in the record, and fashioned a proportionate remedy addressing discovery incompleteness.
The appeal was dismissed.
