Digests

Decision Information

Decision Content

PRACTICE

Discovery

Haylock v. Norway (The)

T-1027-01

2003 FC 932, Hargrave P.

29/7/03

10 pp.

Written discovery--In action (claim by ship board medical personnel, 15 nurses, one doctor, residing in various Canadian provinces, United States, Norway, serving aboard 11 passenger vessels operated by Norwegian Cruise Lines Ltd.), defendant seeking permission to use written discovery and, if necessary, further oral discovery--Granted--Not usual approach in Federal Court, but here, sensible procedure having substantial promise of saving both time, money on route to achieving just result on merits--Written discovery, or its nearest equivalent in other jurisdictions, interrogatories, long considered relatively inexpensive means of obtaining answers to questions of technical or clerical nature--Proposal put forward by counsel for Norwegian Cruise Lines could avoid expense of bringing witnesses from great distances, only to have them ill-prepared, or without relevant material, and have to be brought back again--Federal Court Rules, 1998, r. 3 providing that Rules to be interpreted so as to secure just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of every proceeding on its merits--Of special importance in present day litigation need to reduce costs of trial, and need that trial occur as quickly as possible--As general principle, Rules of procedure should be servant of substantive rights, not master: Reekie v. Messervey, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 219--Special circumstances test required under r. 55 not applicable to case of both oral, written examinations, for r. 234 only specifying that there be leave of Court--Norwegian Cruise Lines, having demonstrated appropriate circumstances, may have initial written discovery, as part of discovery process of each of plaintiffs, in addition to such oral discovery as it may reasonably require--Here defendant should keep in mind that such written discovery must not be so burdensome as to require days or weeks of research--Federal Court Rules, 1998, SOR/98-106, rr. 3, 55, 234.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.