What are the principles applied on an application to examine a second representative of a corporate defendant?

The principles to be applied on an application to examine a second representative of a corporate defendant were summarized by Madam Justice Sinclair Prowse in Murao v. Blackcomb Skiing Enterprises Ltd. Partnership, 2003 BCSC 558, at paragraphs 66‑71. I will paraphrase those principles that apply here: a) The party applying to examine a second representative must establish that the first representative cannot satisfactorily inform themselves about the subject of the examination for discovery. This is an objective test, and it is not determined by the view of the examiner. b) The court should consider factors such as the responsiveness of the first representative, the degree to which they made efforts to inform themselves, and the nature and materiality of the evidence sought to be obtained from the second representative. c) Practicality and efficiency are significant factors, recognizing that the process of obtaining information and providing written responses can be time consuming and may deprive the examining party of an effective discovery by compromising their ability to ask proper follow-up questions.