991656 ALBERTA LTD v ISFELD, 2011 ABQB 469


5.10: Subsequent disclosure of records
5.30: Undertakings

Case Summary

The Defendant applied for an Order requiring the Plaintiffs to provide information and documents objected to during Questioning.

In reaching its Decision, the Court applied Rule 5.30 and the Decision in Trimay Ware Plate Ltd v Way, 2009 ABQB 47, wherein the Court, applying former Rule 200(1.2), held that a person being Examined “is required to answer only relevant and material questions”. The Court found that the Decision in Trimay Ware Plate Ltd v Way emphasized the narrowing of the scope of oral Questioning as a result of the 1999 Rules of Court amendments.

In addition, the Court held that certain of the Undertakings objected to were properly refused as they fell under the category of Rule 5.10 which provides for a continuing obligation on parties to produce relevant and material records as parties become aware of such documents and if they have not already been produced during the course of the litigation.

Relying on the Decision in Trimay Ware Plate Ltd v Way and the Rules, the Court held that the information and records sought did not meet the “relevance and materiality” threshold.

View CanLII Details