Cirocco Jones

I turn now to the defendants' allegations that plaintiffs' counsel prolonged the trial by his failure to appreciate the rules of evidence ... counsel for the plaintiffs encountered difficulty in phrasing his questions in a manner that complied with the usual requirements for eximination-in-chief. It was striking too that when the defendants began their case, counsel for the plaintiffs developed a marked ability that had not been exhibited during his case, to distinguish between a question that was leading and one that was not.

- Pittman Estate v. Bain, (1994) 35 CPC(3d) 55 (Ont. Gen. Div.)