SALMON v MAMA PANDA LTD, 2020 ABQB 323
5.2: When something is relevant and material
This was an Application by a Defendant, Mama Panda Ltd. (“Mama Panda”) to compel a Third Party Defendant, Dr. Page (“Dr. Page”) to answer questions and Undertakings that were refused or objected to at a cross-examination on an Affidavit.
The Plaintiff had suffered injuries in a premise that was occupied by Mama Panda. Dr. Page had changed the original cast placed on the Plaintiff by another one of the Defendants, who was a different doctor. Mama Panda filed a Statement of Defence and a Third Party Notice against Dr. Page, who brought an Application to have the Third Party Notice dismissed. Dr. Page argued that the Third Party Notice was outside of the limitations period. In bringing the Application to compel answers to questions and Undertakings, Mama Panda argued that it was important to establish what Dr. Page knew and when he knew it. Dr. Page argued that the questions and Undertakings objected to were not relevant and material to the Application to dismiss the Third Party Notice.
Justice Nation noted that pursuant to Rule 5.2 a question is relevant and material only if the answer could reasonably be expected to “significantly help determine one or more of the issues raised in the pleadings” or “ascertain evidence that could reasonably be expected to significantly help determine one or more of the issues raised in the pleadings”. Justice Nation found that Mama Panda was entitled to explore the issues on which it had questioned or requested Undertakings from Dr. Page. Accordingly, Her Ladyship allowed Mama Panda’s Application to compel Dr. Page to answer the questions and Undertakings that were objected to.View CanLII Details