The Plaintiff agreed to produce several employees for Questioning. However, the parties disagreed on whether the Costs for questioning the second and subsequent employee should be paid up-front.

Master Schlosser noted that Rule 5.17(2)(b) allows for the examination of persons,  including employees. Further, the questioning party must pay the Costs of Questioning the second and subsequent witnesses, unless the parties agree otherwise or the Court orders otherwise, pursuant to Rules 5.17(2)(f) and (g).

Master Schlosser maintained that producing several employees for Questioning was “very much to be encouraged”. Indeed, Master Schlosser held that this could be useful for both parties, especially once the corporate party has asserted its position on the evidence pursuant to Rule 5.29. Master Schlosser then remarked that Alberta is unique in not limiting the number of employees (past or present) that can be examined.

The case law cited by the parties failed to provide direct guidance on whether these questioning Costs were payable up-front. However, Master Schlosser found that pursuant to the Rules and the case law, the Defendant would inevitably have to pay the Costs for questioning the additional employees. Finding that Security for Costs was not required in the circumstances, Master Schlosser was reluctant to order that the Costs should be paid up-front.