Witness can have Lawyer Respond after Car Accident

The claimant was injured in a single vehicle accident when she lost control of her vehicle due to slippery road conditions. The Claimant said that the defendants, responsible for highway maintenance in the area where the accident occurred, were negligent. The Capilano defendants deny liability and say that they complied with their duties. The road conditions as well as the actions of the highway maintenance workers in the hours leading up to the accident are issues for determination in this personal injury litigation.( Cabezas v. HMTQ,2015 BCSC 449).
The claimant applied for a pre-trial examination of an employee of Capilano pursuant to Rule 7-5(1) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules and for an order that the Capilano defendants provide to lawyer for the claimant the full employment file of its former employee  pursuant to Rule 7-1(10), (11) and (13).
The requests were both denied.   The fact that the witness had chosen to communicate through a lawyer does not amount to a refusal to give a responsive statement.
The employment file of the defendant employee was not found to be relevant and the court refused to order disclosed calling the request a , “fishing expedition”.
Posted by Vancouver Personal Injury Lawyer Mr. Renn A. Holness