Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Plaintiff sought to pre-emptively limit discovery questioning regarding a separate personal injury lawsuit filed in Saskatoon.

• The court declined to restrict questioning in advance, ruling that relevance should be assessed during questioning using standard objection procedures.

• Questions related to a prior injury claim were deemed potentially relevant to the issues of overlapping injuries and damages.

• The plaintiff failed to provide sufficient affidavit evidence to justify a blanket exclusion of questions.

• The court emphasized the broader scope permitted during pre-trial discovery compared to admissibility at trial.

• Application was dismissed, and costs were ordered in the cause, with the court noting procedural shortcomings by the plaintiff.

Facts of the case

In Sehgal v. 628656 Saskatchewan Ltd., 2025 SKKB 59, the plaintiff, Mehwish Sehgal, brought a personal injury lawsuit against the defendants, which include a company operating under the name Holiday Inn Hotel & Suites Regina. She alleges she suffered injuries to her knees while using the hotel’s fitness centre as a guest. As part of the litigation process, she was subpoenaed to attend discovery questioning scheduled for March 28, 2025.

On the day questioning was to take place, Sehgal filed an application seeking to limit the scope of questioning. Specifically, she asked the court to prevent any reference to a separate lawsuit she had filed earlier in Saskatoon (QBG-SA-00651-2019), which allegedly involved different injuries. She also initially requested the defendants provide audio recordings of documents she claimed were voluntary statements, though she later confirmed that issue was resolved when the audio was provided.

The court’s analysis on scope of discovery

Justice Robertson reviewed the application and rejected it for several reasons. He found the request to preclude certain questions during questioning was premature and procedurally improper. The court explained that under The King’s Bench Rules, parties may object to specific questions during discovery, and then seek a ruling from the court later if needed. However, a party cannot seek an advance ruling on hypothetical questions that have not yet been asked.

Further, the court held that there was no sufficient evidentiary basis to conclude that the Saskatoon lawsuit was entirely unrelated. Sehgal claimed that the Saskatoon action concerned a neck injury from alleged medical malpractice, whereas this case involved knee injuries from an incident at the hotel. Nonetheless, the court noted that questions about previous injuries, particularly if they are similar or overlapping, may be relevant for assessing damages, pre-existing conditions, or credibility. The defendants argued that both lawsuits referenced similar injuries and alleged damages.

Justice Robertson emphasized that the scope of discovery questioning is intentionally broad and allows greater latitude than would be permitted at trial. The purpose of discovery includes exploring facts, narrowing issues, and assessing the strength of the opposing case. Questions need only be potentially relevant to be permissible during this phase.

Procedural findings and costs

The court also addressed procedural shortcomings. Sehgal filed her Brief of Law late—on the day of the hearing—and had failed to seek permission for a remote (telephone) appearance in accordance with Rule 6-17. Despite these irregularities, the court allowed the hearing to proceed without objection from the defendants.

While the court dismissed Sehgal’s application, it accepted that she had at least succeeded in obtaining voluntary production of the audio recording prior to the hearing. As such, Justice Robertson declined to impose costs directly and instead ordered that costs be in the cause, meaning they will be addressed at the conclusion of the trial.

Conclusion

The court dismissed Mehwish Sehgal’s application to restrict discovery questioning about a related prior injury lawsuit, holding that such restrictions were premature and unsupported by evidence. The ruling affirmed the importance of full and fair discovery and clarified that the relevance of questions should be addressed in context during the questioning process, not in advance. The litigation will proceed with questioning permitted on all relevant matters, including those linked to the Saskatoon action.