The Plaintiff applied to compel answers to Undertaking requests arising from a Questioning on the Defendant’s Affidavit of Records. The Defendant opposed the Application on the basis that the questions asked were overly broad.

Master Robertson noted that Questioning on an Affidavit of Records is “as of right”. Master Robertson held that the nature of the questions was not to be scrutinized too technically, but rather that the purpose of the Questioning should be considered. Specifically, Master Robertson noted that in accordance with Rule 1.2(3), both parties must identify the real issues in dispute and facilitate the quickest means of resolving the claim. Master Robertson observed that there was a wider “‘reasonableness’ limitation” placed on decisions relating to record production and Undertaking responses; the principle of proportionality applied to such rulings. The records sought must be relevant and material, and a litigant is not required to go to “extensive lengths” to seek out records which may not exist when those records would not likely have a significant bearing on resolution.

Ultimately, Master Robertson made specific rulings in regards to the objections advanced by the Defendants, and ordered that the Defendant produce a further and better Affidavit of Records.