The Applicants (Defendants) appealed a Master’s Order requiring their executive to attend one day of Questioning. The Respondent (Plaintiff) took the position that the executive had knowledge of the reason behind his dismissal and not being awarded a performance bonus.

After reviewing the facts of the case, the Court held that the executive had or appeared to have relevant and material information acquired as a result of her position with the Applicants (Rule 5.17(1)). The Court found that the executive was personally involved and played a hands-on role in the process that led to the Respondent not being awarded the bonus. Thus, the Court agreed with the Master’s Decision that the Respondent was entitled to question the executive.

With respect to whether the executive should be excused from having to attend Questioning pursuant to Rule 5.3(1)(a), the Court stated that it was not satisfied that the Respondent was acting in a manner that was vexatious, abusive, oppressive or improper. The Court was also not satisfied that the expense, delay or difficulty for the executive would outweigh the likely benefit gained from Questioning (Rule 5.3(1)(b)). The Court upheld the Master’s Order for the executive to attend Questioning and awarded the Respondent its Costs on the Appeal.