I am a self rep litigant and recently I attended a cross…

So this was part of the discover process and you can only cross examine the parties.

The bank can provide one officer or director to act as the party.

So at this stage you don't have the right to cross examine whomever you want.

But you can do so at trial by subpoenaing them.

Does that help you understand the law?

Please feel free to post back with any follow-up questions you may have. If you don't have any then I hope I have earned a 5 star rating but if you don't feel that I have please don't hesitate to reply back and let me know what more I can do to assist you. Finally, please know that even after you rate me I will be here for you and you can ask follow-up questions if you think of them later on at no further charge of course.

The Bank is the party. And the bank has a right to produce one person who is an officer or director or someone in authority to represent the bank.

But this is just discoveries. That is where you can find out more about the case. It doesn't mean that you cannot call these people to be witnesses at the trial where the judge will see what is going on.

The judge who is the trial Judge does not read these transcripts. And the only way these transcripts can be shown in court at all is if they are used to attack someone's credibility by showing that they lied under oath during the discovery process.

If you believe that they are withholding information that is vital to you then you can bring a motion to the court asking for the bank to produce another witness. But, it is going to be extremely hard for you to succeed and you likely will not. That is because the bank simply has the right to produce whomever they want. You don't get to call witnesses at the discovery process and you certainly cannot control who appears by naming them in an affidavit.

When you think about it how could our legal system function that way? That would mean that one party could list dozens of people in her affidavit that they would all have to attend the discovery process. The discovery process is just for the parties and not for witnesses.

You cannot have witnesses at the summary judgment application.

It is not a trial.

Only the lawyers attend unless a party is self-representing.

But for a summary judgment evidence of facts is not usually necessary. The reason why is that the summary judgment will be granted only if the facts, if believed, still do not provide a reason for a full trial.

Our legal system is very complex. Even lawyers have difficulty with summary judgment applications.

I can try to explain it but I really can't fully teach you the law over this post.

Any facts or evidence you want to be brought forward have to come from your own affidavit. But it is really not about the facts so much.

What the bank has to show that is that even if all of your facts are believed you will still lose.

Do you see what I mean?

I am quite concerned because I don't know if you know this that if you lose your going to be stuck with almost all the bank's legal costs.

There is a hearing to argue about whether they should succeed or not.

That is how this process works and it is you right to attend and contest their application.

It is not outrageous because you get to defend.

If they lose you get a trial.

But it they win then the matter is over.

So you don't interrupt and don't have to intervene because you are the party that gets to contest their application.

The summary judgment application is to get the matter dismissed before trial.

They will tell the judge that you cannot win no matter what you prove at trial. You have to prove that there are facts that if believed will allow you to win.

If you cannot prove this there will never be a trial.

If they are moving to get summary judgment on your counter-claim it will end if they succeed.

Did you do your affidavit for the hearing?

Did you do your factum and your brief?

You can file a supplementary affidavit.

Is this Small Claims Court?

You put in another Affidavit sworn by someone else if they have evidence.

You have to do a brief.

And you have to do a Factum which is a statement of fact and law.

Is there anything more I can help you with at this point in time?

That is basically correct.

The other side and the Judge see what your position is in the factum and you will see theirs.

Then at the hearing you will have a chance to argue why the matter should not be decided right there but that a trial is needed.