Hargrave
Prothonotary
:
This
application,
for
the
continued
examination
for
discovery
of
Mr.
Kenneth
Lowe,
is
allowed
on
certain
terms.
To-date
there
have
been
far
too
many
adjournments
of
the
discovery
of
Mr.
Lowe,
the
auditor
employed
by
the
Defendant.
As
a
result
he
has
spent
unnecessary
time
preparing
and
re-preparing
for
cancelled
examinations.
However,
I
am
not
convinced
that
examination
for
discovery
was
closed
off
on
26
June
1995
merely
because
the
court
reporter
saw
fit
to
write,
at
the
end
of
the
transcript
“EXAMINATION
FOR
DISCOVERY
CONCLUDED”:
it
is
reasonably
clear
from
the
transcript
that
the
discovery
was
left
open.
Nevertheless,
the
Defendant
and
the
Defendant’s
witness
had
every
right
to
expect
that
the
discovery
would
be
reconvened
and
concluded
within
a
reasonable
time.
At
this
point
the
litigation
is
far
too
stale.
It
is
essential
that
the
Plaintiff
get
on
with
its
case.
While
I
am
allowing
further
examination
for
discovery
by
the
Plaintiff
of
the
Defendant,
the
Plaintiff
should
keep
in
mind
that
discoveries
are
“not
a
never
ending
process
that
knows
no
boundaries”,
but
should
come
to
a
timely
conclusion:
John
Labatt
Ltd.
v.
Molson
Breweries,
A
Partnership
(1997),
69
C.P.R.
(3d)
126
(Fed.
T.D.)
at
page
128.
The
terms
on
which
the
further
discovery
of
Mr.
Lowe
will
take
place
are
as
follows:
1.
The
Plaintiff
will
provide,
by
27
June
1997,
as
a
precondition
to
any
further
examination
for
discovery
of
Mr.
Lowe:
a)
The
outstanding
undertakings
from
the
defendant’s
examination
for
discovery
of
the
Plaintiffs
which
took
place
12
September
1995;
b)
A
letter
setting
out
the
additional
areas
on
which
the
Plaintiff
wishes
to
examine
Mr.
Lowe,
together
with
counsel’s
best
estimate
of
the
time
the
examination
will
take;
and
c)
The
Plaintiffs
Affidavit
of
Documents;
2.
The
discovery
will
take
place
at
Mr.
Lowe’s
convenience,
on
consecutive
days,
to
be
completed
by
29
August
1997;
3.
Undertakings
arising
out
of
the
discovery
will
be
completed
within
30
days
of
the
last
discovery:
there
shall
be
no
further
discovery,
arising
out
of
those
undertakings,
except
by
the
leave
of
the
Court;
4.
The
Plaintiff
will
provide
appropriate
conduct
money,
with
the
cost
of
all
further
discoveries
of
Mr.
Lowe
at
the
Plaintiffs
cost
in
any
event;
and
5.
The
costs
of
this
motion
shall
be
in
the
cause.
Motion
granted.
Email this Content