The Court found that special reasons under UCPR r 22.1(3) were established in a historical sexual assault claim where staff rosters had been destroyed and the plaintiff faced difficulty identifying the alleged perpetrator, but granted leave for only one of six proposed interrogatories. The single interrogatory allowed sought the identity of the officer who completed a property register proximate in time to the plaintiff's admission, as this was considered reasonably necessary to assist identification of the alleged assailant. The remaining interrogatories were refused on the basis that the information was obtainable from a log book offered by the defendant, could be given by the plaintiff directly, or sought inherently vague and subjective descriptions such as ethnicity or apparent ancestry.
The full text is available to signed-in members.