D'Elia v. Dansereau,

• Judge: Perras, J.
• Neutral Citation: 2000 ABQB 425
• Citation: (2000), 267 A.R. 157 (QB),2000 ABQB 425,267 AR 157,82 Alta LR (3d) 298,[2000] AJ No 731 (QL),267 A.R. 157,[2000] A.J. No 731 (QL),(2000), 267 AR 157 (QB)
• Date: 06 June 2000
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)

D'Elia v. Dansereau (2000), 267 A.R. 157 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] A.R. TBEd. JN.090

Alicia D'Elia and Luis D'Elia (plaintiffs/respondents) v. Bernard Guy Dansereau and Angela Marie Dansereau (defendants/applicants)

(Action No. 9803-07898; 2000 ABQB 425)

Indexed As: D'Elia v. Dansereau

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Perras, J.

June 20, 2000.

Summary:

The defendants applied for an order direct­ing the female plaintiff to attend for a fur­ther independent medical examination before a particular doctor and an order directing the male plaintiff to answer questions objected to at examination for discovery.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench refused to order the further medical exam­ination and determined the type of questions that the male plaintiff was required to answer.

Practice - Topic 4151

Discovery - General principles - Nature and scope of discovery - New discovery rules were brought into force - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the previous broad scope of oral examin­ation was now significantly nar­rowed from the previous practice - It was no longer enough to argue that ques­tions on discov­ery "touched the matters in ques­tion" - Rather, the issue was whether the ques­tions were relevant and material and, if so, did they advance significantly the determi­na­tion of the issues raised in the pleadings - Relevant questions would be those ques­tions having regard to the pleadings that elicited facts that were in issue or facts that made facts in issue more probable than not - See paragraphs 10 to 17.

Practice - Topic 4779

Discovery - Physical or psychological examination - Circumstances justifying refusal - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench refused to order a further medical examination of a plaintiff by a chronic pain expert - No clear need had been demonstrated for the examination - Fur­ther, a very thorough independent medical that can­vassed the very issues sought to be further exam­ined on had been com­pleted recently - See para­graphs 4 to 9.

Cases Noticed:

Trotter v. Catton (1977), 15 O.R.(2d) 280 (H.C. Master), refd to. [para. 4].

Baker v. Yacyshen (1999), 253 A.R. 373 (Q.B.), dist. [para. 8].

Lyons v. Khamsanevongsy (1997), 207 A.R. 385 (Q.B.), dist. [para. 8].

Czuy and Czuy v. Mitchell, Edmonton General Hospital and General Hospital (Grey Nuns) of Edmonton (1976), 1 A.R. 434; 72 D.L.R.(3d) 424 (C.A.), consd. [para. 6].

Woelk v. Halvorson, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 430; 33 N.R. 232; 24 A.R. 6202, refd to. [para. 19].

Best v. Fox (Samuel) & Co., [1951] 2 All E.R. 116 (C.A.), affd. [1952] A.C. 716 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 19].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court (Alta.), rule 186.1, rule 200(1), rule 200(1.2) [para. 11].

Counsel:

Robert M. Simpson (Durocher Simpson), for the plaintiffs;

Kenneth A. Holmstrom (Chomicki Baril), for the defendants.

This application was heard on June 6, 2000, by Perras, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmon­ton, who delivered the following decision on June 20, 2000.