Can counsel for the party being examined on examination for discovery interfere on cross-examination?
British Columbia, Canada
The following excerpt is from Zhang v Zhang, 2021 BCSC 831 (CanLII):
Counsel for the party being examined should not interfere on the cross-examination on examination for discovery unless it is “clearly necessary to resolve ambiguity in the question or to prevent injustice”: Day v. Hume, 2009 BCSC 587 [Day] at para. 20….
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
How have counsel for the examining party been advised to conduct their own examination for discovery? (British Columbia, Canada)
Can a defendant continue to examine for discovery after an examination for discovery has been adjourned? (British Columbia, Canada)
Can a party decline to attend for discovery if there has not been complete discovery of documents by both parties? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is an adverse in interest party entitled to examine an infant for discovery? (British Columbia, Canada)
Does a successful party have the right to claim special costs when the successful party is in a relationship with an opposing party? (British Columbia, Canada)
Can a party recover in restitution where another party has been unjustly enriched at that party's expense? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the effect of the intention or understanding of a party to a transaction where a party intended to transfer a vehicle to another party? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the proper procedure for counsel for the prevailing party in an ex parte application to obtain an order from the affected party? (British Columbia, Canada)
Does the law of agency apply when one party gives explicit or implicit authority to another party (the principal) to enter contracts with third parties? (British Columbia, Canada)
Can a party be denied costs for giving false evidence on examination for discovery? (British Columbia, Canada)
