Is an examination for discovery not a fishing expedition?

Ontario, Canada


The following excerpt is from Tanner v. McIlveen Estate, 2009 CanLII 18676 (ON SC):

The case of Kay v. Posluns, supra, is often quoted as standing for the proposition that an examination for discovery is not a fishing expedition. The purpose of discovery is not to permit counsel to search out evidence which might be helpful at trial nor is it permissible for counsel to ask any and all questions in the hopes of discovering something that will be of assistance to the case. Criminal charges against the Defendant

Other Questions


Is an examination for discovery not to be the equivalent of a fishing expedition? (Ontario, Canada)
Can a deponent be cross-examined in the examination for discovery of a party who was unavailable at trial? (Ontario, Canada)
Can a defendant be excluded from an examination for discovery of a representative? (Ontario, Canada)
Is an examination for discovery required by way of videoconference rather than in person during COVID-19? (Ontario, Canada)
Can an examination on discovery be confidential? (Ontario, Canada)
In a non-jury judge alone sexual assault action, can a plaintiff refuse to answer questions on an examination for discovery? (Ontario, Canada)
What are the purposes of discovery and analysis in the context of discovery? (Ontario, Canada)
Can a County Manager be examined for discovery in a motor vehicle accident case? (Ontario, Canada)
Can an Affidavit of Documents be examined for discovery? (Ontario, Canada)
Can discovery occur earlier than actual discovery? (Ontario, Canada)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.