The Plaintiff commenced an Action against the corporate Defendants claiming shareholder oppression. The Defendants, pursuant to Rule 3.68, subsequently moved to strike part of the Action as it related to the documentation of an offer by the Defendants to purchase the shares owned by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff responded by seeking and obtaining leave to amend its Pleadings with respect to the same documents; the Defendants’ Application to Strike was dismissed. The Defendants then applied under Rule 7.3 to summarily dismiss the Action. The Plaintiff responded by seeking production of the Defendants’ Affidavit of Records, and by seeking to compel Questioning. The Defendants moved to set aside the appointments for Questioning.

Master Prowse stated that the Rules with respect to Summary Judgment may as well not exist if a respondent is entitled to insist on the usual production of documents and Questioning before the hearing of a Summary Judgment Application. With respect to the Plaintiff’s fears that the Defendants would advance the Summary Dismissal Application based on erroneous Affidavit evidence, Master Prowse suggested that the Plaintiff should provide some specific evidence in response. Master Prowse concluded that the Plaintiff was not entitled to the production of documents or Questioning with respect to the documents at issue. The Appointments for Questioning of the Defendants’ Affiant were set aside.