' Cite as: L & R Equities Ltd. v. Conn, 1990 NSSC 139 ~ t 1987 S. H. No. 62184 I IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA TRIAL DIVISION I BETWEEN: I L & R EQUITIES LIMITED and NOVA EQUITIES INCORPORATED, bodies corporate I PLAINTIFFS I - and -I JOHN D. CONN, Nova Scotia Land Surveyor, carrying on business under the firm name and style of Conn, Lord and Humphreys, I Land Surveyors DEFENDANT "I I I HEARD: at Halifax, Nova Scotia before the Honourable I MR. JUSTICE ROBERT MACDONALD, Trial Division, on November 14th, 1990 (in Chambers) I DECISION: November 14th, 1990 (orally at conclusion of hearing) I COUNSEL: Charles D. Lienaux, for the plaintiffs Barbara S. Penick, for the defendant t I I
t • t 1987 S. H. No. 62184 I IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA I TRIAL DIVISION I BETWEEN: L & R EQUITIES LIMITED and NOVA EQUITIES I INCORPORATED, bodies corporate PLAINTIFFS I - and -I JOHN D. CONN, Nova Scotia Land Surveyor, carrying on business under the firm name I and style of Conn, Lord and Humphreys, Land Surveyors '-' DEFENDANT I MACDONALD, J.: (Orally} I This application is for a ruling under rule 18.09 I of the Civil Procedure Rules as regards the defendant giving, I as requested in the notice, "complete and proper answers" to the plaintiff with respect to the location of ihe I plaintiff's eastern boundary line which, I understand, is the whole matter in dispute. I l I [
- 2 Rule 18.09(1) and (3) state: "Scope of Examipation 18. O9 . ( 1) Unless it a person, being examined for discovery, shall answer his knowledge or means any matter, not privileged, to the subject matter of though it is not within pleadings. (3) When any discovery omits to insufficiently, the court requiring him to answer and give scich other directions as are just." I believe before it must be clearly shown that the person being interrogated clearly evaded answering a question, or his answer is clearly insufficient. In chief examination cross-examination of witnesses, how a question is posed as to a question. The precision of a question in order to depends, to some extent, on interrogation. Questions involving certain subjects require a considerable degree of precision, asked and answered in an offhand and rather general manner. l - J l ] is otherwise ordered, upon an examination ] any question within of knowledge regarding that is relevant the proceeding, even ] the scope of the l person examined for answer or answers l may grant an order or to answer further ] such an order is granted, l of witnesses and ] a great deal depends upon to what answer will be given J required in the formation ] obtain an appropriate answer the subject matter of the l while others may be l J I I
't l - 3 I Certainly, when you I lines, precision is quite necessary, a considerable number of documents. I I believe "R", and perhaps a today. I I The question before or not this witness, Conn, was evasive or not. I I have heard argument I have to decide, to a considerable ~ "R", referred to as the "amended answers to interrogatories", and I have to keep in mind also that there I (on two occasions, I am told) of this particular witness. I At discovery, generally tno.t the interrogettor should be I with an exactness, that if the I could be readily and clearly seen; insufficient as related to the I is met, the courts should have little trouble whether an answer is evasive and, therefore, insufficient. I t The interrogator certainly should have, think, a good deal of knowledge I ' -are involved with property as is shown here by They go from "A" to couple more that were filed me appears to be whether by both counsel and I extent from the exhibit was discovery speaking, I would say able to form his questions answers are evasive, this or that the answers are question. If this criteria determining I would as to what questions he
- is going to ask, because he the discovery and he knows what he is after. get the right answers, as is alleged here, or if he doesn't get what he considers the proper answers, this may be because he hasn't asked the proper questions. In any event, I for by the solicitor for the plaintiffs, to the answers to the interrogatories and discoveries, not give me the evidence and declare that Mr. Conn, the defendant here, omitted to answer, or answered insufficiently, to him. I' therefore, application. Costs will be the final examination of the will determine this whole matter, where the evidence can be heard before the court ·that will try this case. Halifax, Nova Scotia November 14th, 1990 l ~ 4 - J is the person who asked for J If he doesn't I J l find that the relief asked l as related back does l information I would need to J the questions which were put l am going to dismiss the in the cause, as it will be ] witnesses in this case which ] and it is the proper place J ] l J ! l
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.