What is the relevant case law in the context of an examination for discovery?

British Columbia, Canada


The following excerpt is from Li v. Oneil, 2013 BCSC 1449 (CanLII):

As the examination for discovery was not concluded, the heavy onus required to justify a further discovery referred to in Sutherland v. Lucas is not engaged. Given the extensive document production since the examination for discovery was conducted, I am also of the view that the defendant is entitled to continue its examination for discovery based on the new material, whether or not it was produced in accordance with a request left on the record.

Other Questions


Can counsel for the party being examined on examination for discovery interfere on cross-examination? (British Columbia, Canada)
Can a defendant continue to examine for discovery after an examination for discovery has been adjourned? (British Columbia, Canada)
How have counsel for the examining party been advised to conduct their own examination for discovery? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is a failure to complete document discovery an excuse for failing to attend an examination for discovery? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for an examination for discovery? (British Columbia, Canada)
How have courts considered viva voce evidence in an examination for discovery? (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 this application for a continuation of the examination for discovery which took place in May 2014 dismissed? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the relevant case law in the context of the BCCA? (British Columbia, Canada)
Can an applicant and respondent at a summary trial rely on expert reports, examinations for discovery, interrogatories, use of admissions, and expert reports? (British Columbia, Canada)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.