What is the legal test for wrong answers on discovery?

With respect to wrong answers on discovery, the following passage from Kay v. Posluns, at. 247, is germane: The duty to correct answers under rule 31.09 is on the party, not his counsel. It also contemplates that the obligation is after the completion of the examination, not during it. If a party has given an incorrect or confusing answer, his counsel may endeavour to correct or clarify it on re-examination, as permitted by rule 34.11. Often it may be more desirable to correct an error at the time it is made, but if the examining counsel objects, then it must be corrected in accordance with the rules. Otherwise such interjections by counsel for the party may interrupt the proper flow of the examination. If objection is taken to a question, an argument should not ensue on the record of the discovery. It should be dealt with in accordance with rule 34.12.

The following paragraph from Kay v. Posluns which appeared under the heading “Improper Conduct” and which I respectfully adopt, is set out in full: To achieve a proper discovery there must be a spirit of co-operation between counsel. They can protect their respective clients while still conducting a proper discovery. The difficulties arise where they are not in agreement as to the issues or relevancy of matters thereto. Rule 34.14 provides for an adjournment to seek directions for the specific purposes therein set out. Otherwise, examinations should be continued to their conclusion. There may be necessary adjournments by consent for the convenience of counsel or for other reasons. There followed a statement by Steele J. to the effect that he agreed with the statement of Master Peppiatt in Kingsberg Developments, supra, that appears in paragraph 39 above.