2 total
The court partially granted a motion for answers to refused discovery questions, applying relevance and proportionality principles.
The plaintiff, Daniel Avon, brought a motion seeking answers to questions refused or taken under advisement during the examination for discovery of the defendant, NFP Canada Corp. The action involves claims of constructive dismissal by the plaintiff and a counterclaim for breach of contract by the defendant.
The Master applied the relevance test under Rule 31.06 and proportionality principles under Rule 29.2.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Master ordered answers to questions concerning the nature of a new position offered to the plaintiff and an alleged pattern of behavior, finding them relevant and proportionate.
However, two questions seeking broad access to texts and emails were deemed overly broad and not required to be answered.
No costs were awarded, as both parties achieved partial success.
Tribunal grants application amendments and permits one of two medical witnesses to testify by teleconference.
The applicant in a human rights proceeding brought preliminary requests to amend the application, compel production of medical documents, and permit two medical witnesses to testify by teleconference.
The Tribunal granted the amendments on consent.
Regarding document production, the respondent was ordered to provide its communications with the third party holding the documents.
The Tribunal permitted one doctor to testify by teleconference as his credibility was not a significant issue, but required the other doctor to attend in person because his credibility was critical to the proceeding.
