PRACTICE |
Discovery |
Examination for Discovery |
Bayside Towing Ltd. v. Canadian Pacific Railway
T-1692-99
Evans J.A.
21/8/00
3 pp.
Appeal from decision by Prothonotary Hargrave refusing Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) motion to examine Mr. Catherwood, non-party to litigation from which motion arose--Prothonotary Hargrave had not misapprehended facts, otherwise erred in law in holding CPR failed to establish information that might be provided by Mr. Catherwood not available from another source by any other reasonable means--R. 238(3)(b) not satisfied by CPR--Only purpose for examining Mr. Catherwood would be to elicit information about use of assist-tugs at Mission bridge from which standard practice of tug operators at bridge might be inferred--Practice of other tug operators would be equally relevant to identifying general practice of tug operators in use of assist-tugs when transiting Mission bridge--CPR not entitled to examine Mr. Catherwood under r. 238 unless able to establish information about practice of tug operators at bridge not reasonably available from other sources--Appeal dismissed--Federal Court Rules, 1998, SOR/98-106, r. 238.