Articles Posted in Examination for Discovery

Nathan Fielder has a show called “The Rehearsal“. It’s a hard show to explain. You have to see it to believe it. I find it hard to understand how the show was green lit by executives on words or a script alone. It was green lit on the genious and creativity of Nathan Fielder.

The premise, is that Nathan is obsessed about a problem and he wants to get to the route of it in order to solve the problem or make it better. Nathan believes that everything in life would be easier, if you were able to rehearse it over, and over again, until you got it right. That makes sense, but it’s completely impractical which is what makes the show so entertaining. Nathan is so obsessed with the problem that he creates an exact simulation (to the minutest of details) and rehearses the scenario it over, and over again until he better understands what’s happening so that he can get to the route of the problem and solve it. He creates intricate sets which are the exact replicas of reality; hires actors to best simulate the reality of mundane situations; and repeats scenarios over and over again until he gets them right.

It’s a wonderful premise. In part, because it’s so unrealistic in terms of the levels of time, money, effort and energy which are invested into these otherwise mundane scenarios which an ordinary person would not think twice about.

Funny enough, personal injury lawyers do a lot of rehearsing with our clients. This is called client preparation. Our law firm runs “prep sessions” for our clients before big touchstone events in their cases so that they know what to expect and so that they can perform at their best.

Continue reading →

In the United States, they call them depositions.

In Ontario, they are referred to as Examinations for Discovery, or Discoveries, or Discovery.

Examinations for Discovery take place under oath. That means that the deponent has to swear, or affirm, that they will tell the truth (not lie!).

They are an opportunity for the other side to ask questions about your case. They will ask all sort of questions about you as well. Some questions may be relevant to your case. Other questions may not appear to be relevant, but sometimes are. It’s best to trust you lawyer to determine which questions you ought to answer, and which questions you ought to refuse to answer. In the event that there’s a disagreement about what’s relevant, and what’s not relevant, the lawyers will identify the question as a “refusal“. It then would be up to a Judge to decide whether or not the question needs to be answered, and whether or not the deponent would need to re-attend at discovery based on the answer to the question refused. This is a common occurrence at Examinations for Discovery. Lawyers tend to agree to disagree, and move on in order to complete the Examination for Discovery; and then argue about the refusals later. It makes no sense to spend all day and waste time arguing refusals at the discovery itself when a Judge will ultimately have the final say in terms of whether or not the question needs to be answered and addressed or not.

Continue reading →

What is an Examination for Discovery?

Examinations for Discovery are normal. They occur in nearly every civil action (personal injury, or not), in Ontario.

This is an opportunity for your personal injury lawyer to ask the Defendant at fault driver, or insurance adjuster a series of questions which are answered under oath. Your lawyer will ask the at fault party some very simple questions, along with some more pointed questions in order to get more evidence about the case at hand.

The same way your personal injury lawyer gets to ask the at fault party questions; the lawyer for the insurer gets to ask the Plaintiff accident victim, or Plaintiff disability claimant questions of their own.

The insurance defence lawyer will also ask some very simple questions like:

What’s your name?

Whats’ your current address?

What’s your date of birth?

Are you married?

Do you have any dependents?

What is your highest level of education?

Where were you working before the accident?

The insurance defence lawyer will also have some very pointed, more specific questions for you about your case:

Do you recall telling Dr. Smith that your back hurt on such and such a date?

On a scale of 1-10, how would you rank the pain in your back?

Would you describe the pain in your neck as a sharp stinging pain, or a dull ache?

Would you describe the collision as a light, medium or heavy impact?

Do you recall hearing the sound of a honking horn, or tires screeching prior to the collision?

How many car lengths were between your vehicle, and the other vehicle the FIRST time you saw it? What about the SECOND time you saw it?

How much time elapsed between the time you saw the at fault vehicle and impact?

Do you recall what Dr. Smith said to you at your medical appointment on September 10,1982? (of course you don’t, this was all the way back in 1982!!!)

Continue reading →