1.2: Purpose and intention of these rules
5.1: Purpose of this Part (Disclosure of Information)
5.3: Modification or waiver of this Part
5.4: Appointment of corporate representatives
15.6: Resolution of difficulty or doubt

Case Summary

In a Case Management dispute, the Defendants argued that the individual who swore the Plaintiff’s Affidavit of Records should also be appointed as the Plaintiff’s corporate representative for Questioning. The Plaintiff argued that an appropriate corporate representative for Questioning had been chosen.

Tilleman J. held that the Plaintiff had the right to appoint a representative pursuant to Rule 5.4. His Lordship stated that the appointment of the Plaintiff’s corporate representative achieved the goals of proceeding with the Action in a timely and cost effective way pursuant to Rule 1.2(1) and (2) as well as Rules 5.1(1) and 5.3(1). Further, Tilleman J. observed that it was important that the Court be satisfied that the corporate representative be “fully informed and prepared for questioning”.

Justice Tilleman also stated that, if there was any “doubt” or “difficulty” as to whether the new Rules applied to an existing proceeding, such as this one, then the Court could rely on its discretion under Rule 15.6 to confirm its decision to allow the Plaintiff’s selection of corporate representative. His Lordship was clear that the overriding consideration in determining whether the former or new Rules applied under Rule 15.6 was to advance the goal of moving the litigation forward. Justice Tilleman held that the Plaintiff’s selection of a corporate representative was both reasonable and bona fide, and the selection achieved the goals of proceeding in a timely and cost effective manner.

View CanLII Details