What is the current state of the law on cross-interference by counsel during an examination?

Appellant counsel relied on the case of Kudlak v. Sutherland, [2005] O.J. No. 3395 to support his argument that the Respondent's interventions were excessive and should not be tolerated. At paragraph 16 of that decision, Justice Pierce discussed those circumstances where interjections would be allowed by counsel whose client was being examined: 1. To permit counsel to understand the question put to his client, in order to determine whether it is a proper question. 2. Once counsel understands the question, he may interject only to object... An objection should be identified as such, with the grounds succinctly stated. An interjection that does not fall within the above principles is merely interference. and those circumstances where interjections would not be allowed: 3. Counsel must not answer questions for a witness whose answer is wrong. 4. Counsel must not lead the witness after the witness has given a damaging answer. 5. Counsel must not answer to correct or clarify a confusing answer. 6. Counsel cannot communicate with the client during examinations. ... 7. Counsel may re-examine, if necessary ... The re-examination is restricted to correcting answers that are wrong or ambiguous.