I guess I got a little behind in my reporting. I'm looking back and I just noticed that I haven't told you about my Notice of Examination of John Corlett.
I told you at the end of November that I served Notices of Examination on all the co-defendants, without naming a time and place. That's because I just wanted to establish priority. The party who serves first is the one who gets to examine first. But opposing counsel never responded to my notices.
So when I served them with my Motion for Exclusion of parties, I also served them with a fresh Notice of Examination. This one wasn't general purpose: I named a specific party and a specific date. I asked them to present John Corlett on behalf of the University of Winnipeg.
John Corlett was Vice-president Academic during the events of last winter, and he was the one who told me I wouldn't be allowed to appeal the trespassing order. He was also the one who told me the University would refund my tuition fees if I agreed to withdraw from the program. But he is not named as a party in my Statement of Claim.
According to the rules of discovery, I am entitled to examine each named defendant; but I am also entitled to examine a representative of the corporate defendant, namely the University of Winnipeg. Oddly enough, I am the one who is entitled to name the person who shall represent the University, and I am allowed to choose any officer of the organization, past or present. I chose Mr. Corlett.
Opposing counsel did not respond to my Notice of Examination, nor did they respond to several follow-up emails where I mentioned the pending examination. Not until this last Friday, eleven days before the scheduled examination. In the same letter where Mr. Meronek announced he would be filing his own motion, a motion which he said would take priority over mine which was already filed, he also informed me that he would not be presenting Mr. Corlett for discovery.
It seems Mr. Corlett does not work at the University any more. It is therefore not surprising that they do not wany me examining him on their behalf. Nevertheless I appear to be entitled to do just that under the Court of Queen's Bench Rules. We'll have to see how this works out.