Ruling amends undertakings to limit production to relevant and material records
The Alberta Court of Appeal has identified which questions required answers and which did not in a personal injury case where the injured party was involved in multiple accidents before and after the subject motor vehicle accident.
In Hasibullah v Potter, 2025 ABCA 179, the appellant requested damages from the respondent based on his alleged negligence in causing a Feb. 26, 2016 motor vehicle accident. The respondent countered that the appellant caused the accident.
In this appeal, the issue revolved around the proper scope of questioning for discovery and record production, primarily concerning the appellant’s medical history.
The record showed his involvement in motor vehicle accidents in 2009, August 2012, August 2017, July 2018, and February 2023. The record also noted that he fell off a ladder in October 2016. He objected to answering questions on these other accidents and his financial circumstances.
The chambers judge ordered the appellant to answer some of the questions and related undertakings, which the judge deemed relevant and material to the pleaded issues, and to produce records also based on their relevancy and materiality.
The judge said the appellant did not need to answer the other questions. The judge rejected the appellant’s argument that a limit applied to the production of records created over three years before the accident.
The Court of Appeal of Alberta partly allowed the appeal. The appeal court ordered the appellant to answer questions 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 16, 17, and 18, but not questions 19–23. The appeal court modified undertakings 11 and 12 and required him to produce records relevant and material to the action.
The disputed questions included:
The appeal court ruled that the chambers judge reasonably found these questions relevant and material to the source of the appellant’s injuries, given the relevancy and materiality of the question of whether a prior or subsequent accident caused some of his injuries present during trial.
Question #16 was whether the appellant had previously used any other names that he would go by in a court pleading. The appeal court noted that some evidence supported his name change and that his factum offered no submissions about this question’s propriety.
Question #17 was whether the appellant told the doctor who assessed him that he had motor vehicle accidents in 2009 and 2012. The appeal court had no objection to this question because the medical expert’s knowledge base was relevant to the weight it should afford to the opinion.
Question #18 asked the causes of the 2009 and 2012 motor vehicle accidents. The appeal court said the respondent should offer a reasonable line of analysis to demonstrate relevance and materiality if he wanted the appellant to produce additional records or answer questions on these accidents.
The disputed questions on the appellant’s current living and economic circumstances included:
The appeal court considered these questions prima facie irrelevant since a party injured by another’s negligence would be entitled to damages regardless of their economic or social situation.
The appeal court deemed undertakings 11 and 12 too broad and noted that the appellant had no obligation to produce records solely because he had custody of them or power to obtain them.
The appeal court amended these undertakings to require the appellant to disclose any relevant and material records in his power or control regarding:
