Digests

Terra Nova Shoes Ltd. v. Nike Inc.

T-778-02

2003 FC 1052, Russell J.

10/9/03

11 pp.

Appeal on motion to compel answers--Motion for order reversing, in part, order of Lafrenière, P. dated May 21, 2003--Defendants argue Rules and case law requiring relevant and proper questions must be answered during examinations for discovery--Defendants say Lafrenière P. erred in dismissing request that subject questions be answered--Furthermore, defendants say they will be irreparably prejudiced in preparation of their defence if not permitted to obtain answers to subject questions--Granting order sought in appeal will secure just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of proceeding on merits--Court may limit examination for discovery if examination considered oppressive, vexatious or unnecessary--Court may also refuse further discovery where it finds discovery closed or that party has waived its rights to ask further questions--In conclusion, plaintiffs say Lafrenière P. exercised discretion properly after careful consideration of transcripts and evidence and based on experience as Case Management Prothonotary for present action with intimate knowledge of history of action and discovery--This appeal motion brings into play competing interests embodied in Federal Court Rules, 1998, rr. 240(a), 243--R. 243 allowing Court to limit discovery process where it considers examination to be oppressive, vexatious or unnecessary--In case at bar, decision of Prothonotary to limit discovery process in way he did as regards questions at issue not clearly wrong or based upon wrong principle of law or misapprehen-sion of facts--Appeal dismissed--Federal Court Rules, 1998, SOR/98-106, rr. 240, 243.