Refusals Motions – When Should You Bring Your Motion?


In Jetport v. Jones Brown [2013 ONSC 2740 (S.C.J.)], Master Graham attempted to resolve some uncertainty as to whether a party that has set an action down for trial or has consented to an action being placed on a trial list is required to obtain leave, pursuant to Rule 48.04, to bring a refusals motion.

The plaintiff argued that leave was not required since Rule 48.04(2) does not relieve a party from any obligation imposed by Rule 31.07 (which addresses the failure to answer on discovery).

The Court considered the relevant provisions of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Master Graham concluded that absent a Court Order, there is no obligation on a party to answer questions refused at an Examination. Accordingly, Master Graham held that the exception relied on by the plaintiff only applied for a motion to compel answers to undertakings, not refusals.

As a result, a party that has set an action down for trial or has consented to the action being placed on a trial list must seek leave of the Court to initiate or continue a motion to compel answers to questions refused at an Examination for Discovery. Practically, this means that parties must ensure that they bring any motion for refusals at the earliest opportunity.

Topics:  Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Motion to Compel, Motion to Refuse

Published In: Civil Procedure Updates

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Lerners LLP | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »