The Plaintiff brought a motion for directions regarding the continuation of the cross-examination of a Defendant, Dr. Fenton, on his affidavits.
The cross-examination was terminated by the Plaintiff due to alleged persistent interruptions and interference by Defence counsel.
The Plaintiff sought orders for Dr. Fenton to re-attend, for the examination to be video-recorded, and for specific rules of conduct for Defence counsel, along with costs.
The Defendants argued the cross-examination was properly ended and sought costs.
The court found Defence counsel's repetitive commentary obstructive, justifying the termination.
It ordered the continuation of the cross-examination with strict rules for counsel's objections and awarded costs to the Plaintiff.
However, the request for video recording was denied, as it is an exception under the Rules of Civil Procedure and not justified by the circumstances.
