The art of examinations-in-chief (and

more)
Arguably the Best
March 28, 2011 | Written By Dave Hill

The importance of proper examinations-in-chief is

present in all cases obviously, but in some cases is
even more important when the opposing party may
not call any evidence and you do not get a chance
to cross-examine opposing witnesses. For example,
fighting the Canada Revenue Agency in a Tax Court
case.

The art of proper examination-in-chief, in my view,

involves a W5 approach. In other words — who,
what, when, where, why (and the occasional how).

Your questions should be short and concise so

when the judge hears the question and hears an
equally short and concise answer, his or her next
thought is one of the “W’s.” Your examination
should follow that train of thought.

For example, if you ask about a meeting, the

listener would usually then start to ask in his or her
mind the following questions:

•    Where was the meeting held?   

•    What was the purpose of the meeting?   

•    Who called the meeting?   

•    Who was present at the meeting?   

•    What was discussed at the meeting?   

•    How long did the meeting last?   

•    What was the result of that meeting?

Ask yourself how you would be thinking when you hear evidence about an event. Your own mind would likely
then follow this W5 track. So the questions in court or in an arbitration should follow that track.

Do not leave the witness to do all the talking. Oftentimes when reviewing a transcript in the Court of Appeal,
you will see a short question, followed by a half-page answer. If you read a transcript like that then, in my
respectful opinion, the direct examination has not been properly carried out. One should never lose control of a
witness, and dictating the pace of the evidence is crucial depending on the ability of the judge or arbitrator
either to electronically or manually make notes.

There is no reward for speed. Remembering that judges are mere mortals should be your guiding perspective.
Always keep an eye on the judge or arbitrator before going to the next question. When the judge or arbitrator is
required to look at an exhibit or look at one document in a volume of exhibits, make sure that the judge is at
that exhibit before you begin the question related to it.

In terms of a way to facilitate a good examination-in-chief, the use of agreed books of documents or exhibits is,
in my view, the best way to tell a story. Hence, the importance of agreeing on as many documents prior to trial
as possible.

With the aid of the book of documents or exhibits, you simply refer the witness to a specific exhibit, at the same
time watching and making sure that the judge has it in front of him or her. You then use the document to direct
your question. In that regard, make sure to make clear the exact page number of the document, the location of
the paragraph in question, and the specific point in the paragraph to which you want the witness’ attention to
be brought. In short, you should be able to say that you want the witness to look to “page 1 of exhibit 9, second
paragraph, last sentence.” This not only makes for a good examination-in-chief but also makes for a much
better transcript when the case goes to appeal.

It is axiomatic that leading questions are not to be used. Putting aside the evidentiary rule that prevents leading
questions, if every leading question was objected to, trials would take much longer than they presently do. A
trial judge once said that if all he or she hears is counsel’s voice in the examination-in-chief, followed by one-
word responses from the witness, those answers get very little weight.

Anticipation of evidentiary matters at trial

It is axiomatic to say that PREPARATION is the key to any trial or arbitration work. Knowing the evidence,
preparing witnesses, researching the law, and preparing an opening statement and trial books are all part of
that extensive preparation.

But what I have not seen (at least in Manitoba) virtually at all is what Carly Simon once sang: ANTICIPATION.
By that I mean anticipating what evidentiary issues/objections/rulings might pop up in the trial, especially in a
longer one.

In court, you should have with you those legal authorities that will support the positions that you will take
should various evidentiary objections arise.

This “support” should consist of taking with you the latest edition of Sopinka, Lederman, Bryant — The Law of
Evidence in Canada, the Evidence Act, and the relevant rules of court. In addition, we have prepared over the
years, and take to court in every instance, a trial book covering a number of evidentiary topics that customarily
arise in the course of a trial. This trial book has an index of 12 topics together with excerpts from Sopinka, the
Evidence Act, or the rules of court, and copies of the most recent cases on point. In this trial book, the topics
with supporting authorities are:
•    hearsay   

•    non-suit motions   

•    hostile/adverse witnesses   

•    counsel’s obligations concerning a witness in the stand   

•    use of examination for discovery read-ins   

•    the collateral fact rule   

•    the rule in Browne v. Dunn

•    expert evidence   

•    use of notes or aide-mémoires

•    self-serving evidence and prior consistent statements   

•    failure to call important witnesses and the adverse inference rule   

•    vicarious liability for statements/admissions of another person

The trial book must always be updated as the years run by to keep up with the evolving principles of evidence
and the evolving application of evidentiary principles.

In over 150 civil trials, I can honestly not recall any more than five instances where opposing counsel (often
senior counsel) even had the basic tool, i.e. Sopinka’s text.

Curiously enough, in a relatively recent five-week trial in the Ontario Superior Court, Justice John dePencier
Wright provided counsel with his own aide-mémoire on expert evidence and the various facets involved in
admitting and considering expert evidence. That aide-mémoire contained, similar to a trial book, authorities on
point. Therefore, in my view, maintaining and using your own trial book is essential to the proper “shaping” of
the evidence by counsel, whether it be in a civil trial, a commercial arbitration, or an administrative hearing.

How many witnesses should be called

As an articling student, I was taught that witnesses can often get in the way. Therefore, proving facts through
other means is an essential aspect of trial procedure — for example, through the mouth of the opposing party,
i.e. examination for discovery read-ins, or through pretrial admission (notices to admit facts), or through agreed
books of documents/exhibits. Such methods often eliminate the calling of certain witnesses at all, or at least
reduce the number of needed witnesses. Calling two witnesses to prove a fact or facts, where only one is
necessary, can often give opposing counsel fodder for cross-examination.

Finally, often a witness is called, or so counsel says and intends, only to deal with a particular point in the case.
However, on cross-examination, that “limited use” witness can be questioned on any relevant matters that the
cross-examiner can think of, often leading to the evidence being “shaped” in a way that was never intended by
counsel. Unless the “limited use” witness is absolutely essential to prove your case, think carefully about not
calling that witness.
Obviously there can be negative consequences of not calling a key witness — i.e. the adverse inference rule
might be invoked. This is all the more reason for proving facts in the pretrial process (i.e. through a thorough
and concise examination for discovery) without the necessity of having to call actual witnesses to testify.

Dave Hill is a partner with Hill Sokalski Vincent Walsh Trippier LLP in Winnipeg. His practice encompasses virtually
all aspects of civil litigation, including corporate/commercial litigation, arbitration, and mediation.

COMMENTS

SPONSORED LINKS

Canadian Bar Association -British Columbia Branch

Osgoode Professional Development
The Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation
Thomson, Rogers Law Library

OPEN SURVEYS

Call for Nominations: Top 25 Most Influential Lawyers of 2018

Have your say on succession planning

Subscribe to Canadian Legal Newswire

Sign Up
MOST POPULAR

McLachlin appointed to Hong Kong court

SCC denies leave to Merchant Law Group LLP
Just say no to the police
Paralegals in family law
Accounting for legal work
Patenting artificial intelligence