What is the current state of the law on intervening at an inquest?

Steel J.A.’s comments made in Metis Child, Family and Community Services v. A.J.M., supra, as sensible as they are, will have a more nuanced and flexible application in the context of inquests. Although it might indeed be more orderly and respectful to await the conclusion of counsel’s examinations and cross-examinations before intervening, the inquisitorial role of an inquest judge, whose priority is the gathering of facts for an eventual report and accompanying recommendations, cannot be limited to interventions seeking mere clarifications. While the intervention should ideally be courteous and the questions asked must not suggest a predisposition or a mind already determined and closed, the mere fact of a more interventionist approach by an inquest judge will by itself suggest neither injudiciousness nor impartiality. (d) The Need to Respect the Scope of the Inquest in Question