What is the test for conducting an examination for discovery?
British Columbia, Canada
The following excerpt is from Stanway v. Wyeth Canada Inc., 2013 BCSC 369 (CanLII):
In Day v. Hume, 2009 BCSC 587 this court said at para. 20: The principles emerging from the authorities are clear. An examination for discovery is in the nature of cross-examination and counsel for the party being examined should not interfere except where it is clearly necessary to resolve ambiguity in a question or to prevent injustice.
"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
Can a defendant continue to examine for discovery after an examination for discovery has been adjourned? (British Columbia, Canada)
Can counsel for the party being examined on examination for discovery interfere on cross-examination? (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 proper conduct of counsel in cross-examination? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the relevant case law in the context of an examination for discovery? (British Columbia, Canada)
How have courts considered viva voce evidence in an examination for discovery? (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)
Is this application for a continuation of the examination for discovery which took place in May 2014 dismissed? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the legal test for conducting a medical examination in a personal injury case? (British Columbia, Canada)
