The Applicant applied for an Order requiring the Respondents to attend for Questioning before the Court considered a vexatious litigant Application previously brought by the Respondents. Success in this Application would necessitate an adjournment of the vexatious litigant Application.

Neither of the Respondents in this Application had filed an Affidavit in support of the vexatious litigant Application, therefore the Applicant did not have a right to question them under Rule 6.7. Instead, the Applicant relied on the more general Rule 6.8, which allows a person to be questioned under oath as a witness for the purpose of obtaining a transcript of that person’s evidence.

The Court noted that, before ordering a witness to submit to Questioning under Rule 6.8, the Court needs to have some sense of the questions that would be asked and whether the witness has relevant information to offer.

The Applicant’s Application to question was denied. The Court was unconvinced that any proposed line of questioning was relevant or material to the vexatious litigant Application. Because the Respondents were relying on the Court record in their vexatious litigant Application, the Court determined Questioning would not add anything relevant to the record that did not already exist.