There are two ways to introduce evidence given by a witness examined for discovery at trial:
- The party who carried out the examination can use the prior evidence to impeach the witness’ evidence at trial where it differs from the evience given at the examination; or
- The party who carried out the examination can “read-in” portions of the transcript produced at the examination and those “read-ins” become part of the evidentiary record at trial.<img class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-502" alt="Answer" src="http://www.ontarioconstructionlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/128-300×225.jpg" width="300" height="225" srcset="http://www.ontarioconstructionlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/128-300×225 generic viagra 100mg.jpg 300w, http://www.ontarioconstructionlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/128-400×300.jpg 400w, http://www.ontarioconstructionlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/128.jpg 500w” sizes=”(max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px” />
The recent case of Urbacon Building Groups Corp. v. Guelph (City), 2013 ONSC 5773 (CanLII) – which by the way is producing lots of interesting caselaw re construction liens in Ontario – addressed whether an owner rely upon read-in evidence from transcripts of subcontractors’ Examinations for Discovery against the general contractor. The City of Guelph took the position that it could read-in portions of the transcripts of the Examinations for Discovery of Urbacon’s (the GC) subcontractors against Urbacon.
Much to my nerdy delight, Justice MacKenzie cited an earlier Ontario Decision and a B.C. Decision and ruled that (I paraphrase) discovery evidence can only be read in against the party who gave it. One can easily imagine the mischief that could result from one party relying on the evidence given by X against Y when Y may not have had a chance to challenge or counter X’s evidence and I am glad that the door on this risk has been closed just a little further and, in particular, in the context of a multi-party construction lien action.