Horsnell v Allworth Constructions

The case of Horsnell v Allworth Constructions involved a claim for damages stemming from bodily injury. The plaintiff, Horsnell, had sustained injuries that impaired his ability to prove how the accident occurred. The defendant, Allworth Constructions, was required to provide answers to interrogatories concerning the incident. Allworth's initial responses were deemed insufficient. A notice of motion was subsequently filed, seeking an order for the examination of the deponent who had answered the interrogatories, based on the inadequacy of the responses provided.

The central legal issues the court had to resolve were whether the deponent had fulfilled the obligations imposed by the rules when answering the interrogatories and whether an order for examination was the appropriate remedy when the deponent's answers were found to be insufficient. Specifically, the court had to consider the extent to which the deponent was required to make enquiries and the standards to which they had to adhere when providing answers on behalf of the corporate party.

The court found that the deponent had not adequately fulfilled their obligations under the rules. The insufficiency of the answers was evident when compared with other statements made by the deponent. The court held that the deponent, acting on behalf of a corporate party, was obligated to make enquiries and provide answers to the best of their information, knowledge, and belief. Given the plaintiff's incapacity to prove the circumstances of the accident, the court considered the interests of justice and determined that it was more appropriate to direct the deponent to provide further answers to the interrogatories rather than to proceed with an order for examination. The court thus ordered that the deponent provide additional, satisfactory answers to the interrogatories.