DILLMAN v BC PENSION CORPORATION, 2019 ABQB 395
5.2: When something is relevant and material
The Plaintiff applied to compel answers to questions which the Defendant refused to answer. Justice Dunlop noted that the Defendant was only required to answer questions to which the answer would meet the test for relevance and materiality as set out in Rule 5.2(1). Justice Dunlop noted that questions which did not meet the test under Rule 5.2(1) included questions of law, opinion, or which were hypothetical, and questions which were argument in substance, or which seek argument in reply. Justice Dunlop required answers to questions which would elucidate a relevant response, and which did not fall within the category of excluded questions set out above.
The Court applied Rule 5.2 to each of the questions that the Plaintiff sought the Defendant to answer. Dunlop J. allowed some of the questions, and disallowed a number of other questions.View CanLII Details