Is CAFE permitted to call or examine witnesses?

British Columbia, Canada


The following excerpt is from Oger v. Whatcott, 2017 BCHRT 195 (CanLII):

As it acknowledges, in Hughson v. Oliver, CAFE was afforded intervenor status but was not permitted to call or examine witnesses. In its reply, it says that it is “aware of at least 2 witnesses that we propose to produce.” It does not name the witnesses or what evidence those witnesses would give.

Other Questions


What is the test for cross-examination of a witness in a trial where the witness was cross-examined? (British Columbia, Canada)
Can counsel for the party being examined on examination for discovery interfere on cross-examination? (British Columbia, Canada)
Can a lawyer who fails to put a proposition of evidence to a witness in cross-examination in a civil matter be held liable to sue the witness in a criminal case? (British Columbia, Canada)
Does a cross-examine have to confront a witness in cross-examination? (British Columbia, Canada)
Does a defence lawyer have to cross-examine a witness in cross-examination? (British Columbia, Canada)
Does a Part 7 examination constitute a first independent medical examination for the purposes of tort? (British Columbia, Canada)
How have counsel for the examining party been advised to conduct their own examination for discovery? (British Columbia, Canada)
If there is a contradiction between two statements made by the same witness at different times, can that contradiction affect the credibility of the witness? (British Columbia, Canada)
Does the court have to consider prior no fault examinations before making a decision on a no fault examination? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is evidence of a statement made to a witness by a person who is not himself called as a witness admissible? (British Columbia, Canada)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.