it appears you are not using Nova Scotia civil rules because it is rule * that deals with interrogatories cna you correct
Certainly, I understand your situation. To provide an argument in favor of the Plaintiff, we need to reference the relevant Nova Scotia Civil Procedure Rules regarding discovery and interrogatories.
Argument in Favour of the Plaintiff:
*. **Timeliness and Completeness of Responses**:
- According to the Nova Scotia Civil Procedure Rules, Rule *.*, parties must respond to interrogatories within 20 days unless the court orders otherwise. The Defendant responded 9 days late and did not provide complete answers, thus violating this rule.
*. **Relevance of Evidence**:
- Rule *.* states that any party may serve interrogatories related to any matter relevant to the litigation. The Plaintiff argues that the facts in question are already in evidence through the affidavits, making them relevant and requiring a response from the Defendant.
*. **Obligation to Answer**:
- Rule *.* requires that objections to interrogatories be specific and justified. The Defendant’s general objection that the questions assume facts not in evidence is not sufficient since the facts were presented in the affidavits.
*. **Sanctions for Non-compliance**:
- Rule *.* allows the court to compel answers if a party fails to respond adequately to interrog
My client has not answered interrogatories *-* as these questions assume facts that are not in
evidence. For specific objections to these interrogatories please see the chart below.
INTERROGATORY OBJECTIONS
*. When did you first notice the presence of oxidized iron (iron bacteria/ochre) on the property?
This question assumes that there is oxidized iron on the property.
*. When did you first notice the presence of oxidized iron (iron bacteria/ochre) in the well water?
This question assumes that there is oxidized iron in the well water.
*. What led the basement to undergo water damage, such as wood rot on wooden posts and pallets, corrosion on metal posts, mold on drywall, and rusty iron chore stains on basement floors that were present prior to the closing?
This question assumes that there is wood rot on wooden posts and panels, corrosion on metal posts mold on drywall, and rusty iron core stains on the basement floor.
*. When did you realize that the leaking problem behind the siding was not resolved by the Harris rothers’ attempt to fix it?
This question assumes that there was a leaking problem behind siding and that it was not resolved
*. Please provide details regarding the repair of the water damage on the garage ceiling, which was caused by the leaking behind the siding. Specifically, I am interested in information about who performed the repair and when.
This question assumes that there was repair of water damage on the garage ceiling and that it was caused by leaking behind siding.
*. What other repairs and remediations were done because of the water leaking behind the siding?
This question assumes that there were any repairs or remediations done because of water leaking behind the siding.
*. When did you become aware of the land around the house sinking into the ground?
This question assumes that the land around the house is sinking into the ground.
*. What measures were taken to mitigate and prevent the land from subsiding around
the house?
This question assumes that there were measures taken to mitigate and prevent the land from subsiding around the house and more broadly assumes that the land around the house was subsiding.
*. When did you first become aware that the front entrance was unsafe, leading you to use
the garage entry as the primary point of entry and exit for the house?
This question assumes that the front entrance to the house was unsafe and assumes that the garage entry was the primary point of entry.
*. Why were the basement windows installed below the grade without any window wells?
This question assumes that basement windows were installed low-grade without any window wells.
*. When did you first become aware that water was seeping into the basement during heavy rain or rapid snow melt?
This question assumes that water was seeping into the basement during heavy rain or rapid snowmelt and is unclear.
*. What steps were taken to remedy the issue of water seeping into the basement during heavy rain or rapid snow melt?
This question assumes that water was seeping into the basement during heavy rain or rapid snowmelt and is unclear.
*. When did you become aware that the property has high water tables?
This question assumes that the property has high water tables.
*. When was the utility easement to carry the utility lines to the neighbouring property
installed?
This question is not relevant.
These are the actual questions and answers. Could you consider these in your argument.
Certainly, I understand your situation. To provide an argument in favor of the Plaintiff, we need to reference the relevant Nova Scotia Civil Procedure Rules regarding discovery and interrogatories.
Argument in Favour of the Plaintiff:
*. **Timeliness and Completeness of Responses**:
- According to the Nova Scotia Civil Procedure Rules, Rule *.*, parties must respond to interrogatories within 20 days unless the court orders otherwise. The Defendant responded 9 days late and did not provide complete answers, thus violating this rule.
*. **Relevance of Evidence**:
- Rule *.* states that any party may serve interrogatories related to any matter relevant to the litigation. The Plaintiff argues that the facts in question are already in evidence through the affidavits, making them relevant and requiring a response from the Defendant.
*. **Obligation to Answer**:
- Rule *.* requires that objections to interrogatories be specific and justified. The Defendant’s general objection that the questions assume facts not in evidence is not sufficient since the facts were presented in the affidavits.
*. **Sanctions for Non-compliance**:
- Rule *.* allows the court to compel answers if a party fails to respond adequately to interrog
can you ilarge the view of your answer on the screen
Certainly! Here’s the argument in favor of the Plaintiff with the relevant Nova Scotia Civil Procedure Rules:
Argument in Favour of the Plaintiff:
*. **Timeliness and Completeness of Responses**:
- According to the Nova Scotia Civil Procedure Rules, Rule *.*, parties must respond to interrogatories within 20 days unless the court orders otherwise. The Defendant responded 9 days late and did not provide complete answers, thus violating this rule.
*. **Relevance of Evidence**:
- Rule *.* states that any party may serve interrogatories related to any matter relevant to the litigation. The Plaintiff argues that the facts in question are already in evidence through the affidavits, making them relevant and requiring a response from the Defendant.
*. **Obligation to Answer**:
- Rule *.* requires that objections to interrogatories be specific and justified. The Defendant’s general objection that the questions assume facts not in evidence is not sufficient since the facts were presented in the affidavits.
*. **Sanctions for Non-compliance**:
- Rule *.* allows the court to compel answers if a party fails to respond adequately to interrogatories.
Would you like any further details on any of these points?
Did the information of the actual questions and the defendant's answers provided to you make any difference to your writing?
Thank you for providing the detailed questions and responses. Based on this new information, the argument in favor of the Plaintiff remains largely the same, but can be strengthened by highlighting the Defendant's specific objections to each interrogatory:
*. **Timeliness and Completeness of Responses**:
- According to Rule *.*, the Defendant violated the rule by responding 9 days late and only partially answering the interrogatories.
*. **Relevance of Evidence**:
- Rule *.* allows interrogatories on any relevant litigation matter. The Plaintiff's affidavits provide evidence, making the questions relevant and requiring responses.
*. **Obligation to Answer**:
- Rule *.* demands specific and justified objections. The Defendant's objections are general and insufficient since the facts were presented in the affidavits.
*. **Sanctions for Non-compliance**:
- Rule *.* permits the court to compel answers if responses are inadequate.
Would you like further elaboration on any of these points?
can you elaborate on all points
Certainly! Here’s an elaborated argument in favor of the Plaintiff with the relevant Nova Scotia Civil Procedure Rules:
**Argument in Favour of the Plaintiff:**
*. **Timeliness and Completeness of Responses**:
- **Rule *.***: Parties must respond to interrogatories within 20 days unless the court orders otherwise. The Defendant responded 9 days late and only answered * out of * questions, violating this rule.
*. **Relevance of Evidence**:
- **Rule *.***: Any party may serve interrogatories related to any matter relevant to the litigation. The Plaintiff argues that the facts questioned are already in evidence through the affidavits, making them relevant and necessitating a response from the Defendant.
*. **Obligation to Answer**:
- **Rule *.***: Objections to interrogatories must be specific and justified. The Defendant’s general objection that the questions assume facts not in evidence is insufficient since the facts were presented in the affidavits. Specific objections are required by this rule.
*. **Sanctions for Non-compliance**:
- **Rule *.***: Allows the court to compel answers if a party fails to respond adequately to interrogatories
TRY ME!
Start a new chat