Larosa Food Importing Ltd. v. Cielo Di Livorno ( The )
T-1674-96
Hargrave P.
9/3/99
7 pp.
Nature of written discovery in simplified action-Motion as to form of written discovery questions, adequacy of answers-Basic question format of answers under r. 296-Form of affidavit generic, merely verification of truth of scheduled answers-Affidavit format not requiring questioning party to waste any of 50 questions allowed on merely establishing identity of witness-Helpful, although not required, if scheduled answers preceded by question-Whether complex question, consisting of number of interconnected parts, involved particulars, counts for more than one of 50 allowed questions-Defendants having asked 25 questions, reserving further 25 for follow-up questions-Examination for discovery most important portion of pre-trial procedure-Written discovery rule must be interpreted to give broadest discovery reasonably consistent with legitimate needs of parties, aims of simplified action procedure, which include procedure commensurate with economics of claims of lower value-Party answering written discovery questions must give all information in own possession, should make relevant inquiry of other employees, officers, but would not be bound to go outside to seek information except to servants or agents, only as to their knowledge acquired in course of employment by party-Under r. 296 limited discovery allowed in simplified action merely 50-question cap-No reason why supplemental questions may not be included-Counsel putting written questions may have to accept written answers which are less responsive, less useful than those on oral discovery-Federal Court Rules, 1998, SOR/98-106, r. 296.