Szeto v. Dwyer, 2010 NLCA 36 (CanLII)

  • May 31, 2010

Date: 2010-05-31 Docket: 09/18. Green, C.J.N.L., Roberts and Welsh, JJ.A. | Link

This is an appeal from an interlocutory decision of a Trial Division judge ordering answers by the appellants (plaintiffs in the original proceeding) to certain interrogatories, delving extensively into medical and financial histories, delivered by the respondent (defendant) in a personal injury claim arising out of a motor vehicle accident. The court observed that the problem started with the statement of claim, which gave no detail about either the types of injuries or the damages. [36] The drafting of over-broad interrogatories could potentially have been avoided if the defendant had, instead of jumping into interrogatory-mode, sought "a further and better statement of the nature of the claim" or "further and better particulars" under rule 14.23. [65] Rather than forcing a party to make an expensive, time consuming and possibly unnecessary application, attempts should be made to have matters dealt with by discussion between, or agreement by, counsel.  Adverse costs consequences may result where, on an application, it appears that the actions of, or positions taken by, one party are materially counterproductive to the expeditious, cost effective and fair determination on the merits.