Proceedings and Legal Issues: Hong Fang Wu applied for court orders requiring Zhiyong Ma to provide his list of documents and written answers to requests made during his examination for discovery and examination in aid of execution. Ma had not responded to these requests, despite making no objections initially. He later opposed the orders, seeking an adjournment to consider the material, which was denied.

Legal Arguments:

• Plaintiff's Argument: Wu's counsel, Y. Wong, argued for the necessity of the orders to enforce Ma's compliance with discovery requests. She referenced the authority that courts cannot compel written responses to discovery requests.
• Defendant's Argument: Ma contended that he intended to respond by the end of the month and sought an adjournment to review the material, which was rejected by the court.

Court's Findings: Justice McDonald determined that there was no basis for adjournment and found Rule 7-2(23) provided clear authority for the court to require written responses to discovery requests. The judge cited past cases, such as LaPrairie Crane (Alberta) Ltd. v. Triton Projects and Diachem Industries Ltd. v. Buckman Laboratories Canada, Ltd., to support the decision.

Decision and Costs: The court granted the orders sought by Wu. The document did not specify the total amount of costs or any monetary award in favor of the successful party.

Outcome: The orders requiring Zhiyong Ma to respond to the discovery requests were granted, facilitating compliance with procedural rules and promoting a fair and efficient resolution of the case.