Is an examination for discovery or an interrogatory?

Conversely, because written interrogatories do not provide an opportunity to counsel to observe the opposite party, to assess his or her ability as a witness, or to ferret out weakness, they are not appropriate where the questions to be put to the witness are of a general nature and where the questions will take a more narrative form: This analysis is particularly applicable to the choice between examinations for discovery and interrogatories. Generally speaking, issues involving extensive research, such as precise chronologies or exhaustive lists, would seem to be more appropriate for the more expansive time-frame permitted by interrogatories than for a more confrontational, time-pressured examination for discovery. Conversely, questions requiring a narrative answer are much more likely to remain in focus at an examination for discovery, where counsel can expand on and limit the witness’s answers as appropriate. Roitman v. Chan, [1994] B.C.J. No. 2462 (Master) at 4.