Skip to main content

Lessons From the Toothbrush Case: Setting Aside An Adverse Party Notice

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 12, Civil Procedure, Uncategorized.


Last year I discussed the practice of calling a Defendant during the course of a Plaintiff’s case in chief using the adverse party provisions of the BC Supreme Court Rules.  Reasons for judgement were recently published by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, in the highly publicized ‘broken toothbrush’ trial, addressing these and the circumstances where the Court can set aside an Adverse Party Notice.
In the recent case (Alnoor v. Colgate-Palmolive Canada Inc.) the Plaintiff alleged she was injured while brushing her teeth with a toothbrush manufactured by the Defendant.  She alleged that the toothbrush was negligently designed and sued for “substantial damages“.
In the course of the lawsuit the Plaintiff attempted to examine the President of Colgate-Palmolive Canada for discovery.   These attempts were dismissed with the Court finding that the President was not an appropriate witness to be examined in the circumstances of the case.
As trial neared the Plaintiff served an Adverse Party Notice on the Defendant requiring the president to testify at trial.   Madam Justice Wedge exercised her discretion under Rule 12-5(23) to set aside this Notice finding again that this was an inappropriate witness to be compelled at trial.  In doing so the Court provided the following reasons:

29] The recent decision of Mr. Justice Butler in Dawson v. Tolko Industries Ltd., 2010 BCSC 1384, examines the meaning and effect of these provisions in detail. He observed at para. 18 that the Court is granted only limited jurisdiction to set aside an adverse witness notice. It is only where the evidence of the person is “unnecessary” that the Court can set aside the notice.

[30] Further, as the Court noted at para. 19, it is only in a clear case that a judge should exercise his or her discretion to set aside a subpoena on the ground that the evidence is unnecessary. That is because the Court should be very cautious about second guessing the litigants concerning the benefits they may derive from calling a particular witness.

[31] I agree with those comments. However, the Court is also granted discretion under subrule (24) which provides that where an application is made to strike an adverse witness notice, the Court may make any order it considers will further the objects of the rules.

[32] As I noted earlier, Ms. Alnoor first attempted over two years ago to issue an appointment to examine Mr. Jeffery for discovery. However, the Court ruled that Mr. Jeffery was not the appropriate representative on the basis that his position in the company is strictly managerial. He has no knowledge pertaining to any of the issues arising in the litigation. Ms. Alnoor has been clear that she wants to call Mr. Jeffery, not because he has any knowledge of the issues in the lawsuit, but because he is the person within the corporation who is ultimately responsible for the corporation’s actions, its consumer safety policies, and its recall policies. She points to the various mission statements on the defendant’s website, published over Mr. Jeffery’s signature.

[33] Ms. Alnoor wishes to question Mr. Jeffery about his statement that the defendant is committed to consumer safety, about his responsibility for product safety, and its recall policies. She wants to ask Mr. Jeffery why the company did not recall the toothbrush model in question before she purchased one. Because Mr. Jeffery is the president, submits the plaintiff, he must be the one ultimately responsible to recall products and warn consumers, and she wants to question him about those responsibilities.

[34] The difficulty with Ms. Alnoor’s argument is that the evidence she seeks to elicit from Mr. Jeffery is not relevant to the proof of her claim. She has brought a negligence action against the defendant. She must establish that the defendant was negligent in the manufacture, design, and/or testing of the toothbrush such that it was defective, and that the defect caused the harm the plaintiff alleges she suffered when using it. Any acknowledgment by Mr. Jeffery that he is the person ultimately responsible for the defendant’s actions, including its recall policies, will not advance the plaintiff’s claim in any way.

[35] The identity of the person ultimately responsible and any acknowledgment by that person that he is ultimately responsible by virtue of his management position within the company is simply irrelevant to the negligence factors the plaintiff must prove in order to succeed in her claim.

[36] In the event that Ms. Alnoor does establish her claim, the corporation, not Mr. Jeffery or any other senior management person, will be held liable for the damages flowing from the corporation’s negligence. That is so whether or not Mr. Jeffery acknowledges the various responsibilities he has as the corporation president. The company will be liable whether or not Mr. Jeffery had any idea that his company was manufacturing a defective product.

[37] In short, the evidence Ms. Alnoor intends to elicit from Mr. Jeffery is not relevant to the issues in the lawsuit. Irrelevant evidence is not admissible. It is unnecessary evidence within the meaning of the Rule.

$60,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for "Not Serious" Lingering Soft Tissue Injuries

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Back Injury (soft tissue) Cases, ICBC Spine Injury Cases, Uncategorized. 63 Comments on $60,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for "Not Serious" Lingering Soft Tissue Injuries

Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Nanaimo Registry, assessing damages for longstanding, but not disabling, soft tissue injuries.
In this week’s case (Samson v. Aubin) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2007 collision.  The Defendant admitted liability for the T-bone intersection crash.  The Plaintiff suffered soft tissue injuries to his neck, back, knee and ankle which were characterised as long-standing but “not serious” by his physician.   After an initial period of disability the injuries improved but plateaued without full resolution.  They were expected to flare with physical activities such as prolonged standing and heavier lifting.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $60,000 Mr. Justice Gaul provided the following reasons:
[44] According to Mr. Samson he continues to suffer pain and discomfort in his right knee, right ankle and especially his lower back on account of the Accident. As a result, he has been forced to reduce his efforts at work and has had to retain and pay others to complete the renovation work on his home. He has also had to reduce his recreational activities, including those he engages in with his son…

[47] While I found Mr. Samson to be a poor historian of events, I do not find that he has inflated the magnitude of his injuries in an effort to obtain a greater award of non-pecuniary damages. The evidence of Mr. Samson’s father, Gerald, coupled with that of Mr. Gray, Mr. Manson and the medical evidence, satisfies me that the injuries Mr. Samson suffered as a result of the Accident and the consequential pain, discomfort and loss of enjoyment of life from those injuries, are more severe than those found in the cases cited by the defence.

[48] I find Mr. Samson will likely continue to have some pain and discomfort in his lower back, right knee and right ankle for the foreseeable future. However, I also find that Mr. Samson has not actively pursued his rehabilitation to the degree expected of him. Since the fall of 2007, Mr. Samson has not participated in any exercise program designed to address his injuries, notwithstanding the advice and recommendations he received from the various healthcare professionals who had treated him following his accident.

[49] In my view, having considered all of the evidence, a fair and reasonable award of general damages for Mr. Samson’s pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life is $60,000.

Examination For Discovery Evidence and Proper Procedure at Summary Trials

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 12, BCSC Civil Rule 9, ICBC Liability (fault) Cases.

Update July 19, 2013 – the below decision was upheld in reasons for judgement released today by the BC Court of Appeal
__________________________________________________________________
Reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, discussing the introduction of examination for discovery evidence at a summary trial.
In the recent case (Mawani v. Pitcairn) the Plaintiff was injured in a pedestrian/vehicle collision.  Fault was disputed and following a summary trial Mr. Justice Kelleher found both parties equally to blame.
In the course of the summary trial the Plaintiff tendered an affidavit which attached the transcript from the Defendant’s examination for discovery as an exhibit.   The Plaintiff’s application response clearly indicated that the Plaintiff was only relying on specific questions and answers from the examination.  Despite this the Defendant argued that the entire transcript was put in evidence by the Plaintiff therefore the Plaintiff was bound by the unhelpful answers.
Mr. Justice Kelleher rejected this argument finding that in circumstances where the Plaintiff clearly identifies the specific questions he is relying on such a harsh result is not justified.  The Court provided the following reasons:

[23]At the hearing before me, the defendant argued that the entire examination for discovery of the defendant is before me.  That is because of para. 46 of the earlier ruling:

[46]      … Neither the deposition evidence nor Mr. Pitcairn’s examination for discovery are tendered as part of Mr. Pitcairn’s case.  If they are before me at all, they are before me as part of Mr. Mawani’s case.  His evidence, as matters currently stand, includes both the entirety of the examination for discovery evidence, and an affidavit from Ms. Forrest disclosing those portions of the examination for discovery he intends to rely on.  It also includes the entirety of the deposition evidence, but as I already noted, the rules do not provide for the admissibility of the deposition on summary trial unless arguably the court makes an order for its admission.  As I have also noted, there has been no application yet made by any party for that deposition evidence to be received in whole or in part.

[24]I disagree with the defendant that the entire examination for discovery is before me.  Mr. Justice Harris went on to direct, at para. 69, that plaintiff’s counsel file an application response which sets out the material on which he relies as part of the evidence in his case.  Mr. Gourlay did that on February 29, 2012.

[25]Mr. Arvisais argues that the entire transcript is in evidence.  In a conventional trial, the transcript would not be an exhibit.

[26]The application response filed February 29, 2012, makes it clear that the plaintiff is relying on certain questions and answers only.  Despite Mr. Justice Harris’s statement at para. 46 of his reasons, which were published before the application response was filed, the plaintiff does now make clear what questions and answers are relied upon.  The attachment of the entire transcript of the examination for discovery is consistent with the “proper procedure” outlined by Burnyeat J. in Newton v. Newton, 2002 BCSC 14.

More Judicial Critisism of Delayed Plaintiff Testimony in Injury Litigation

Written by admin on . Posted in Civil Procedure, ICBC Fibromyalgia Cases, Uncategorized. 55 Comments on More Judicial Critisism of Delayed Plaintiff Testimony in Injury Litigation

Earlier this year I highlighted judicial comments criticising the practice of not having a Plaintiff testify as the first witness in their personal injury claim.  Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, echoing these comments.
In this week’s case (Charles v. Dudley) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2008 collision.  She advanced a case alleging chronic pain and fibromyalgia.  The Court found that these claims were not proven on a balance of probabilities and ultimately awarded damages for soft tissue injuries which the Court found “resolved within a few months of the accident“.  In criticizing the Plaintiff’s delayed testimony Mr. Justice McEwan provided the following reasons:

[2] The trial proceeded in a fashion I would have described as unorthodox until recently, with the medical evidence called before the plaintiff testified. Counsel advised that they understand this to be the preferred way to run a personal injury case. I do not know where they get this idea. If persuasion of the trier of fact is the objective, the practice of leading medical opinion unattached to any factual foundation is the most awkward way to go about it. I have observed elsewhere that doctors do not subject their patients to a forensic examination. They generally assume that what the patient tells them is true and attempt to treat their symptoms. Their observations are of assistance to the trier of fact to the degree to which they reasonably conform to the facts that have been established after the plaintiff’s assertions have been tested. It is very difficult to assimilate medical evidence provisionally, that is, with no means of sorting what matters from what does not. A trier of fact obliged to hear a trial this way must go back over such evidence to put it in context. This Court is not alone in making this point. In Yeung v. Dowbiggin, 2012 BCSC 206, Humphries J. said:

[27]     Since the plaintiff was one of the last witnesses called and was in the courtroom very rarely prior to her testimony, it was difficult to assess the evidence about the effects of the accidents as I listened to the various witnesses. I had no idea who the plaintiff was, had no sense of her, and had heard no evidence about the accidents as I listened to all these witnesses. I do not know if this was a tactical decision or whether it was necessitated by schedules, but it meant the evidence I heard was all without context.

[3] In any event, owing to gaps in the scheduling of the opinion witnesses, I persuaded counsel to call the plaintiff after the first medical witness had testified to fill out the court day. The case then proceeded with interruptions of the plaintiff’s evidence to accommodate the scheduled witnesses. While occasional scheduling issues may dictate such a course, plaintiffs in personal injury cases should generally be called first, if the point is to put across a coherent case.

Increased Earnings Are Not A Barrier to Diminished Earning Capacity Damages

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Wage Loss.

As the BC Court of Appeal recently confirmed, it is not ‘wage loss‘ that is compensible in a personal injury lawsuit but rather ‘diminished earning capacity‘.  With this in mind it is important to remember that damages for diminished capacity can be available in circumstances where there is no past wage loss and even in cases where a Plaintiff’s earnings increase following a collision.  Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Nelson Registry, with such a result.
In this week’s case (Brechin v. Pickering) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2007 collision.  Liability was admitted focusing the trial on an assessment of damages.  The Plaintiff suffered various soft tissue injuries to his neck, knee and shoulder.  He worked as an electrician and took ‘very little time off‘.  In addition to this the Plaintiff’s earnings increased in the years following the collision as follows:
[52]  Mr. Bredin’s work history since 2002, shows the following pattern:
2002  $49,991
2003  $29,917
2004  $23,866
2005  $64,256
2006  $40,059
2007  $68,986
2008  $84,142
2009  $80,255
2010  $99,802
The Plaintiff’s injuries were expected to linger and although he could continue to work in his own occupation he was limited in tasks ‘at the heavier end of the scale‘.  As a result the Court awarded damages for diminished earning capacity.  In doing so Mr. Justice McEwan provided the following reasons:
[78]  What emerges from Ms. Mihalynuk’s evidence is a portrait of a person who is rather self-contained, proud of his work and inclined to do very little on his time off..
[80]  Mr. Brechin is now 42 years old in a setting in which he may retire in 15 to 20 years.  There are significant physical demands in the work some of the time, although as he continues to take leadership roles, he is likely to work more often at a reduced physical level of strain.  The primary concern for his future is whether he will be able to continue to retirement without interference from the effects of the accident…
[83]  I accept that work at the heavier end of the scale ought to be avoided, and that he could probably not stay in an occupation that demanded continuous heavy labour.  In the field in which he is employed, however, this does not appear to be expected.
[99]  The possibility of a future event is not specifically that Mr. Brechin will be laid off because of his condition, which is relatively unlikely, given that the medical evidence suggests that his condition is not disabling, but the more general vagaries of business that have made employment “for life”, once a common expectation, highly uncertain.  Should Mr. Brechin lose his position for such a reason he would be put back into a competitive environment where a fraction of the heaviest work would be lost to him…
[100] In this case, that involves a consideration of the medical evidence; Mr. Brechin’s age and likely working life; the relative stability of his employment at Fortis; the possibility that either Mr. Brechin’s condition, or larger workplace and market forces will change his situation, and the prospects he could have were that to happen.  It seems clear that Mr. Brechin could work but that to some extent this range of opportunities would be limited at the heavier end of the work.  The degree to which this is attributable to the accident diminishes over time as age and other factors come into play.  I think it would be an error to assume the same capacity for heavy work in a 50 year old, that one would find in someone significantly younger.  Doing the best I can to assess these factors, I fix $60,000 for future loss of income due to the diminishment of his capacity viewed as a capital asset.  I have done so, bearing in mind his present income earning capacity, which is an improvement over the years before the accident, but that the injuries suffered in the accident may reduce, somewhat, his broader opportunities to work as an electrician.

$40,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for Aggravation of Tronchanteric Bursitis

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Hip Injury Cases, Uncategorized. 48 Comments on $40,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for Aggravation of Tronchanteric Bursitis

Update August 23, 2013 – An Appeal from the below decision was successful with the BC Court of Appeal ordering a new trial.  Reasons from the BC Court of Appeal can be found here.
____________________________________________________________________
Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for aggravation of pain due to pre-existing hip bursitis.
In this week’s case (McArthur v. Hudson) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2008 T-Bone collision caused when the Defendant failed to stop at a stop sign.  Fault was admitted.   The Plaintiff had significant pre-existing difficulties resulting in a total hip replacement.  Following this the Plaintiff developed trochanteric bursitis.

He continued to have problems due to this and other complications of his pre-existing condition.
The collision caused an aggravation of the Plaintiff’s tronchanteric bursitis along with some soft tissue injuries.  The court found that this aggravation ran its course by mid 2011.  The Court further found that the balance of the Plaintiff’s lingering limitations were due to his pre-existing condition and not compensable.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages for the aggravation at $40,000 Madam Justice Kloegman provided the following reasons:

[74]The plaintiff must be compensated for losses due to an aggravation of bursitis in the lateral aspect of the trochanter which was substantially resolved by March 2011. The plaintiff must be compensated for losses incurred by him for a soft tissue injury to his shoulder that substantially resolved after about one month, and a soft tissue neck injury that substantially resolved by May 2011. Finally, the plaintiff is entitled to compensation for headaches experienced until May 2011 and an aggravation of his depression due to the setback (perceived or otherwise) in his rehabilitation until November 2008.

[75]The plaintiff is not entitled to compensation from the defendant resulting from post-surgical complications in his hip, such as sublaxating fascia lata, tight iliotibial band or weak abductor muscles. The plaintiff is not entitled to compensation from the defendant for his lower back issues which resulted from a previous injury and arthritis in the spine. The plaintiff is not entitled to compensation from the defendant for any neck injuries or headaches after May 2011…

[82]Nonetheless, I am satisfied that the plaintiff endured a significant degree of pain, both physically and emotionally, from his Accident related injuries, and he is entitled to reasonable compensation for that. Given the plaintiff’s age, the nature and duration of his injuries, and the impact on his enjoyment of life, I am of the view that his damages should be set at $40,000 (Laroye v. Chung, 2007 BCSC 1478; Guilbault v. Purser, 2009 BCSC 188; and Carter v. Zhan, 2012 BCSC 595).

Making the Doctor Come To You! Defence Medical Exams and Court Ordered Conditions

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 7, independent medical exams. 59 Comments on Making the Doctor Come To You! Defence Medical Exams and Court Ordered Conditions

The BC Supreme Court has the discretion to impose appropriate terms and conditions when forcing a Plaintiff to undergo a Defence Medical Exam in the course of an injury lawsuit.  Unreported reasons for judgement were recently released and shared by Plaintiff lawyer Thomas Harding discussing this and imposing a variety of interesting conditions connected to such an order.
In the recent case (Carta v. Browne) the Plaintiff sued for damages as a result of as 2009 collision.  Prior to this the Plaintiff was injured in a 2002 collision which resulted in him being rendered paraplegic confining him to a wheelchair.
The claimed damages from the 2009 collision included psychiatric injuries.  The Defendant requested a Defence Medical Exam with a psychiatrist in Vancouver.  The Plaintiff objected both to the date proposed and to the location of the examination as the Plaintiff lived in Kelowna and travel was difficult due to his pre-existing disability.
Master Muir agreed that while a psychiatric assessment was appropriate and that the Defendant could choose their expert the Plaintiff was entitled to reasonable accommodation with respect to the timing of the appointment and further that given the Plaintiff’s travel difficulties he was entitled to having the appointment take place in Kelowna.  The Court went on to impose a variety of further conditions providing the following reasons:
[8] …I am satisfied that there are considerations that go beyond simple convenience that dictate that this examination should not be conducted in Vancouver but should be conducted in Kelowna and that it not be conducted on July 30th, which is a time that is more than inconvenient for the plaintiff; it interferes with a scheduled festival that he is planning to attend as a part of a developing business.  Therefore if the defendants are going to insist that the examination be conducted by Dr. Riar, it is my order that Dr. Riar attend in Kelowna at a time convenient to all parties, and I will order that certain conditions be complied with.
[9]  The first condition sought is that the defendants set out exactly what examinations DR. Riar wishes to conduct.  The defendants have indicated that this is a psychiatric examination, that the examination is not to be an invasive one but will consist of conversations between the plaintiff, and I trust that Dr. Riar, being a professional, will confine himself accordingly.  It is of course ordered that ICBC is to pay the reasonable costs of attendance of the plaintiff at the examination.
[10]  I do order that the plaintiff is at liberty to be accompanied by a person of his choice.  This person is to be merely an observer and not participate in or interfere with the exaninaiton in any manner whatsoever.  Dr. Riar will not attempt to get any information from the companion…
[12]  And I so order here that the examination is to be commenced within 30 minutees of the scheduled start time, after which, if the examination has not proceeded, the plaintiff is entitled to depart, and his attendance will be credited as having satisfied the order…
[15]  With respect to item (i) of the response of the plaintiff here, the plaintiff is seeking that there be no surveillance of him during any part of the defence medical examination or during his arrival or departure from there.  In my view this is in the nature of being required to attend court, and it is my view that any such surveillance would be unseemly, and I therefore grant the order.
To my knowledge these reasons for judgement are not publicly available but, as always, I’m happy to provide a copy to anyone who contacts me and requests one.

$20,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment For 3 Year Soft Tissue Injuries With Good Prognosis

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Back Injury (soft tissue) Cases, ICBC Soft Tissue Injury Cases, Uncategorized.

Reasons for judgement were released recently by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for fairly modest injuries caused by a motor vehicle incident.
In the recent case (Ward v. Zhu) the Plaintiff was a passenger on a bus that stopped suddenly throwing her to the ground.  This occurred as the driver was avoiding a collision with another motorist.  Fault was admitted by the other motorist.  The Plaintiff suffered soft tissue injuries and although these remained symptomatic at the time of trial (over three years following the incident) they did not significantly impair the Plaintiff.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $20,000 Mr. Justice Goepel provided the following reasons:

[30] In this case, there is limited evidence that supports Ms. Ward’s claim for loss of enjoyment of life and loss of amenities. Ms. Ward missed no time from work as a result of her injuries. Within two months of her injuries, she was trying out for a soccer team. The only amenities referenced in her evidence concerned reductions in running and walking and difficulty in 2011 sitting through a concert. On the evidence that has been led at this trial, I cannot find that Ms. Ward’s enjoyment of life has been significantly compromised by this accident.

[31] There is also limited evidence in relation to pain and suffering. Ms. Ward abandoned physical therapy and chiropractic treatments shortly after the accident. She went long periods of time without seeking any medical advice concerning her injuries. She did not say anything to her family doctor concerning these injuries until January 2011. The defendant submits that the lack of complaints to medical practitioners supports his submission that Ms. Ward substantially recovered within weeks of the accident.

[32] I do not accept that conclusion. In 2009, Ms. Ward had other difficulties in her life which explain why she did not actively seek treatment for these injuries. I accept her evidence that she did not aggressively seek medical treatment because she mistakenly believed the injuries would resolve without medical assistance.

[33] I find that Ms. Ward did suffer an injury in the fall on the bus. I accept that those injuries have impacted her for more than three years. Her decision not to actively treat her injuries immediately following the accident has undoubtedly prolonged her recovery. When Ms. Ward finally started an active regime of chiropractic and massage treatments her condition improved. Dr. Dyment testified that Ms. Ward’s injuries are now slowly resolving. The evidence does not allow me to conclude that her injuries are permanent.

[34] While Ms. Ward’s recovery has been prolonged, the impact on her life is considerably less than the plaintiffs in Deiter and Parker, although somewhat greater than the plaintiffs in the cases cited on behalf of the defendant. While the cases provide a general range of appropriate damages, all cases ultimately must be decided on their own facts.

[35] I award $20,000 in non-pecuniary damages. This award includes an allowance for the difficulty that Ms. Ward has had or will continue to have in performing her usual household tasks with less efficiency and comfort than she did before the accident: Helgason v. Bosa, 2010 BCSC 1756 at para. 160.

"What's This Lawsuit All About?" Examination For Discovery Caselaw Update

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 7, Civil Procedure.


In my ongoing efforts to archive BC caselaw addressing examinations for discovery, reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC supreme Court, Prince George Registry, discussing the scope of permissible questions.
In this week’s case (Manojlovic v. Currie) the parties were involved in litigation with respect to a purchase and sale agreement relating to lakeshore property.   In the course of the lawsuit the Defendant was examined for discovery during which time he was asked to “tell me in your own words what this lawsuit is all about“.
The Defendant objected arguing this question was inappropriate.  Mr. Justice Tindale disagreed and concluded this question was fair game.  In doing so the Court provided the following reasons:

13] The tone of the examination for discovery was set by Mr. Hall, counsel for the defendants William Richard Currie and Patsy Arlene Currie, at the beginning of the examination.  Mr. Dungate asked the defendant William Richard Currie the following:

9 Q      One of the things I want to accomplish today, Dr. Currie, is I’d like to better understand this lawsuit from your perspective and your wife’s, so perhaps you can tell me in your own words what the lawsuit is about.

Mr. Hall:           Stop. That’s not the process, Mr. Dungate. You ask questions; he answers them.

10 Q    Mr. Dungate: This is my examination for discovery. I’m asking the questions. I just asked Dr. Currie to explain to me what the lawsuit is about. So, what’s the lawsuit about, Dr. Currie?

[14] The plaintiff wishes to ask questions relating to the pleadings in these proceedings. These types of questions were objected to during the examination for discovery. However, Mr. Wright, who was Mr. Hall’s agent for this application, is not opposed to these types of questions but rather argues that they should not relate to questions of law, or questions that had already been asked and answered at examination for discovery.

[15] In my view, the questions asked by Mr. Dungate relating to the pleadings were appropriate. I also agree with Mr. Wright that these types of questions should not relate to questions of law…

[21] An examination for discovery is similar to cross-examination at trial. The plaintiff, in this case, should have been given a wide latitude to explore the relevant issues in the time allotted by the Rules. The Plaintiff was not able to do this on many of the issues that he was trying to explore.

[22] I order that the defendant William Richard Currie shall attend and submit to a further examination for discovery which will have a maximum duration of four hours. This examination for discovery shall be set in consultation with counsel for the plaintiff and counsel for the defendant William Richard Currie.

[23] I order that the plaintiff will be at liberty to ask questions relating to the “pleadings” and the letter marked as “Exhibit 29” at the examination for discovery held on March 9, 2012.