By Julius Melnitzer | January 29, 2024
This article was produced in partnership with Bogoroch & Associates LLP
The approach of Canadian courts to expert evidence has undergone a sea change since the 2015 decision in White Burgess Langille Inman v. Abbott and Haliburton Co., where the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that an expert’s awareness of the duty to be impartial and their willingness to comply with that duty are conditions that go to the very admissibility of their evidence.
“It has become increasingly clear that judges have no patience for experts who cross the line into advocacy,” says Richard Bogoroch, founder of Bogoroch & Associates LLP, a Toronto-based civil litigation boutique whose focus includes medical malpractice and personal injury cases. “We’re at the point where experts have to be non-partisan in the sense of being as objective and fair as possible.”
Justice Cromwell of the Supreme Court of Canada in White Burgess carved out an important gatekeeping function for the trial judge to assess and monitor the independence and impartiality of experts. MORE . . .
Julius Melnitzer is a Toronto-based legal affairs writer, ghostwriter, writing coach and media trainer. Readers can reach him at [email protected] or https://legalwriter.net/contact.
RELATED ARTICLES
BARE BONES BRIEFS: OCA hammers experts again
Amendments to Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure aimed at improving trial readiness
Recent decisions ‘positive developments for plaintiffs’ says Bogoroch’s Alexandra Roman
Independent evidence required to support unjust enrichment claim based on change of beneficiary: OCA
Ontario Court of Appeal catches up with HIV science in voiding decade-old sexual assault conviction