Roles of expert, judge and lawyer concerning expert evidence
“The Ontario Court of Appeal in Parliament v. Conley, 2021 ONCA 261 has provided a refresher for judges, experts and counsel on the roles each plays when dealing with expert evidence: 1. Judges must exercise their gatekeeping role throughout the testimony of expert witnesses; 2. Experts must stick to the area of his or her expertise and […]
Expert evidence required to verify source of text messages
In a recent case, the Ontario Court of Appeal allowed an appeal from the conviction of a man for firebombing his ex-wife’s house. Messages sent on various apps had not been subjected to examination to see whether they could have been sent to ‘frame’ the accused for the offence. In R. v. Aslami, 2021 ONCA […]
The ‘gatekeeper’ role of the courts in admitting expert testimony
This article highlights the difficulties involved where one party seeks to exclude expert evidence. The suggestion is that, where a judge acts as ‘gatekeeper’, there may be an imbalance arising from the judge’s lack of technical understanding. In Nova Scotia (Community Services) v J.M, 2018 NSCA 71 (CanLII), the trial judge ruled evidence from a […]
Which was bona fide – the chicken or the expert?
Subway’s case against the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) has been dismissed, based on expert testimony. CBC had accused Subway of selling ‘chicken’ that was 50% soy. “There is considerable divergence between Subway’s evidence and that of CBC regarding the diligence of CBC’s efforts to be accurate. CBC says that it chose Trent, a reputable university […]
Use of slides by expert witnesses in jury trials
The courts of Ontario have given guidance to expert witnesses who wish to use PowerPoint-type slides in their presentations in jury trials. The key points are as follows: “As a result of the foregoing I gave parties the following guidelines for use of PowerPoint slides at trial: (a) The PowerPoints must be […]
Limit on expert witnesses declared unconstitutional by Canadian court
In 2019, the courts of British Columbia introduced an amendment to their rules, which provided that parties in road traffic cases were limited to three expert reports on the issue of damages. In the case of Crowder v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2019 BCSC 1824, this rule was declared unconstitutional. For more information, see: https://www.cwilson.com/case-study-gregory-crowder-and-trial-lawyers-association-of-british-columbia-v-attorney-general-of-british-columbia-2019-bcsc-1824/?utm_source=Mondaq&utm_medium=syndication&utm_campaign=View-Original
Opinion of document examiner rejected by court in face of other evidence
The evidence of a forensic document examiner was rejected by a Canadian court in a case concerning the validity of a will. The evidence as to execution by the witnesses was accepted by the court. “Ms. Lewis was never provided with nor did she ever see the original of either document. Her opinion is based […]
Limit on expert evidence in vehicle injury claims declared unconstitutional in British Columbia
Rule 11-8 Supreme Court Civil Rules was enacted on 11 February 2019 by a decision of government, without seeking approval from the Rules Revision Committee. Rule 11-8 limited parties to three experts in motor vehicle claims, but was intended to apply to all injury claims from 1 February 2020. The Rule was challenged by a […]