MediaTube Corp. v. Bell Canada, 2015 FC 391
Proth. Aalto - 2015-03-27
Read full decision. Automatically generated summary:
[Note, this decision was only recently posted online - Alan] In this unusual motion and in what can only be described as a vigorously litigated matter, Bell seeks an order to the effect that the representatives of MediaTube and NorthVu attend in person to answer “under advisement” questions posed to date on the examinations for discovery. Bell argues that by taking a large swath of questions “under advisement” MediaTube is trying to orchestrate or script answers by having counsel prepare written answers to those questions. Bell argues that this is entirely improper and that they are entitled on the discovery to a direct answer from the witness without interference by counsel. For their part, MediaTube and NorthVu deny any such intention or conduct. They argue that of the questions which were not answered, a substantial portion of them require investigation and inquiry from other sources to obtain information, and it is entirely appropriate to make those inquiries on behalf of the witness and provide written answers. With respect to the “under advisement” questions, MediaTube and NorthVu argue that these also fall into that category of assembling of information to ensure the answers are accurate and need not be further clarified or updated after the fact as is required by the Rules. They argue that they are entitled to speak to their client’s representatives with respect to obtaining and finalizing answers to all of these questions.
Decision relates to:
- T-705-13 - MEDIATUBE CORP. ET AL v. BELL CANADA ET AL