Rule Details
ROZAK (ESTATE)
Rules Discussed
- Rule 1.1 What these rules do
- Rule 1.10 Where definitions are located
- Rule 1.2 Purpose and intention of these rules
- Rule 1.3 General authority of the Court to provide remedies
- Rule 1.4 Procedural orders
- Rule 1.5 Rule contravention, non-compliance and irregularities
- Rule 1.6 Changes to these rules
- Rule 1.7 Interpreting these rules
- Rule 1.8 Interpretation Act
- Rule 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…