Welcome to Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t! This week, lawyer Kyla Lee discusses cross-examination.
Acumen Law Corporation lawyer Kyla Lee gives her take on a made-in-Canada court case each week and discusses why these cases should have been heard by Canada’s highest court: the Supreme Court of Canada.
Under Evidence Acts in various provinces and territories in this country, the right to cross-examine a person who swears an affidavit often exists. This was the case for Ricardo De Barros who was a notary in Quebec. Mr. De Barros was the subject of a professional discipline complaint. The complainant swore an affidavit setting out a number of allegations against him and in the course of his disciplinary hearing before the Society of Notaries for Quebec, he argued that he should have the right to cross-examine the complainant on the context of her affidavit on the basis of the Evidence Act enforced in Quebec at the time.
The society of notaries dismissed his application saying that the right to cross-examine on an affidavit doesn’t extend to disciplinary proceedings.
The Supreme Court of Canada missed the opportunity here to determine how fundamental cross-examination is when it’s been recognized by statute as a right involving any circumstance where somebody swears an affidavit.
Watch the video for more.