ROZAK (ESTATE), 2011 ABQB 239
Graesser J
1.10: Where definitions are located
1.1: What these rules do
1.2: Purpose and intention of these rules
1.3: General authority of the Court to provide remedies
1.4: Procedural orders
1.5: Rule contravention, non-compliance and irregularities
1.6: Changes to these rules
1.7: Interpreting these rules
1.8: Interpretation Act
1.9: Conflicts and inconsistencies with enactments
Case Summary
The Defendant doctors appealed the Decision of a Master, who had dismissed their Application to compel the Plaintiff to answer certain Undertakings from the Cross-Examination on the Plaintiff’s Affidavit. The Appeal involved the scope of Questioning on an Affidavit (under the old Rules). As part of his analysis, Graesser J. made a broad reference to the Foundational Rules, indicating that the scope of permissible Questioning on an Affidavit has not changed under the new Rules:
Having regard to the foundational rules, I see no purpose or basis to change the scope of questioning on an affidavit in support of an application: questions relevant and material to the underlying application will be permitted and if refused, will be ordered to be answered…
View CanLII Details