Can Rule 266 require a party to submit to discovery?
Alberta, Canada
The following excerpt is from Ferguson v. Steel, 2005 ABQB 20 (CanLII):
In Dul v. Dul, 1998 ABQB 694; 229 A.R. 398 at para. 5 Burrows J. stated that Rule 266 cannot be used to require a non-party to submit to discovery.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
Is a party who is not an applicant in a restrictive covenant action against a party that is not a party to the restrictive covenant? (Alberta, Canada)
What is the basis for the principle that a person who is not a party to the same type of accommodation as a party is entitled to a similar accommodation? (Alberta, Canada)
Is a third party dealing with a corporation not required to ensure that all internal regulations have been complied with where a document is regular on its face? (Alberta, Canada)
Can the rule of discovery be applied in civil proceedings where the evidence of the opposing parties are in conflict? (Alberta, Canada)
Can an examination for discovery be used as evidence against the party who conducted the examination? (Alberta, Canada)
Does the principle of res judicata apply when one party has brought a new cause of action against the same party? (Alberta, Canada)
If there is no clear agency between the parties, can the parties be considered fiduciary? (Alberta, Canada)
Is a court bound by law to award costs in favour of the successful party against the unsuccessful party? (Alberta, Canada)
Is a call to testify for discovery or production of documents in the way of discovery? (Alberta, Canada)
Does a party have an obligation to submit to the jurisdiction of a foreign court? (Alberta, Canada)
