Date: 2003-11-04. Docket: S.H.No.149142. Moir J. | Link
Application for an order directing the defendants to answer interrogatories 2, 3 and 4. Plaintiff claims defendant insurers breached duties to defend and obligations to indemnify plaintiff with respect to claims of physical or sexual abuse by provincial employees. Interrogatories 2 and 3 deal with the insurers’ experience with multiple claimant situations of institutional abuse or other claims. Interrogatory 4 asks for the identity of anyone, except secretarial and clerical staff, who had responsibility in respect of the claim. Court: “Subject to two qualifications, the information sought must be logically and legally relevant. The first qualification recognizes that relevancy is not adequately assessed outside trial. At this stage, one must find a semblance of relevancy. Secondly, in addition to information that is relevant, we allow questions on discovery or through interrogatories which are reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Finally, there is a discretion to limit discovery where it would be just to do so, such as were the burdens that would be placed upon the party making answer clearly outweigh the interests of the party questioning.” Court finds interrogatories 2 and 3 to have no probative value, but orders the defendants to answer interrogatory 4.