Expert Evidence at Trial

The Divisional Court has released an important decision with respect to expert evidence.  In Westerhof v. Gee (Estate), 2013 ONSC 2093 (Div. Ct.), a jury awarded the plaintiff $22,000 in general damages and $13,000 for loss of income.  The trial judge, however, dismissed the claim on the basis that it did not meet threshold.  The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred by restricting the plaintiff's expert witnesses.  A number of treating practitioners were not permitted to give evidence about diagnosis or prognosis, two accident benefits assessors were not permitted to give opinion evidence, a neurologist was not permitted to give evidence regarding psychiatric or psychological issues, and opinions contained in MRI reports were redacted.

The appeal was dismissed.  The Court discussed a number of cases dealing with r. 53.03 and r. 4.1.01, which provide a framework for the duties of experts.  The key distinction is whether the evidence is factual or opinion evidence; if it is opinion evidence, compliance with r. 53.03 is required.  As a result, it was correct for the trial judge to exclude the evidence.  A treating physician could offer evidence with respect to observations of the plaintiff or the treatment provided, but once such a witness seeks to offer opinions on the cause of the injury, its pathology or prognosis, the evidence enters into the realm of opinion evidence requiring compliance with r. 53.03.

Westerhof provides much-needed guidance regarding expert witnesses.  It will be interesting to see whether the number of treating practitioners testifying decreases as a result of the ruling.  The plaintiff's treating practitioners will now be held to a higher standard, and there may be an opening to argue that a practitioner is an advocate rather than impartial witness.

Withdrawing Deemed Admissions

When will a party be permitted to withdraw deemed admissions arising from the failure to respond to a Request to Admit?

In Epstein Equestrian Enterprises Inc. v. Cyro Canada Inc., 2012 ONSC 4653 (S.C.J.), the plaintiff served a Request to Admit eleven days before trial was scheduled to begin in 2010.  Trial was adjourned initially for one week and then again until 2012.  One of the defendants, Jonkman, failed to respond to the Request to Admit.  Rule 51.02(1) provides that a party is deemed to admit the contents of a Request to Admit if it does not respond to it within 20 days after it is served.  Jonkman sought to either set aside the Request to Admit or to withdraw the admissions.

Justice Morgan held that even though the Request to Admit was not served 20 days before trial, once the trial was adjourned and did not start for 20 days, the deeming provision applied. The main issue therefore centred on whether Jonkman was entitled to withdraw its admissions. The court may grant leave to withdraw the admissions if the following conditions are met:

1. The proposed change raises a triable issue;
2. There is a reasonable explanation for the change of position; and
3. The withdrawal will not result in any prejudice that cannot be compensated for in costs. (citing Antipas v. Coroneos, 1988 CarswellOnt 358)

Justice Morgan permitted the admissions to be withdrawn. At the time the Request was served, Jonkman was basically without legal representation as its counsel was in the process of being removed from the record. It had instructed counsel not to respond to the Request to Admit.  It subsequently brought a coverage application and was now being defended by an insurer.  The plaintiff supported the coverage application and must have understood that if coverage was achieved, a defence would be pursued. Jonkman's new counsel and insurer were unaware of the Request Admit and it would be unable to defend itself if the admissions stood.  The coverage application had been settled, and Justice Morgan speculated that the insurer's position may have been different had it known that Jonkman had effectively deprived itself of a defence by failing to respond to a wide ranging Request to Admit.

Justice Morgan was of the view that any prejudice to the plaintiff would not be inordinate as a trial would have been needed to canvas issues with the co-defendant in any event. The plaintiff further argued it was prejudiced as it had entered into a Pierringer Agreement with the remaining defendants and was concerned Jonkman would attempt to pin liability on those parties at trial. Justice Morgan held that the plaintiff had previously assumed Jonkman was insolvent when it entered the settlement and so this factor was to the plaintiff's benefit not prejudice.  The admissions were withdrawn.

The Importance of Objecting to an Improper Jury Charge

Vokes Estate v. Palmer, 2012 ONCA 510 (C.A.)

This appeal decision illustrates the importance of objecting to a judge's charge to the jury, as well as the difficulty in overturning jury verdicts on appeal.

The case involved a fatal motor vehicle accident.  The defendant appealed the jury`s verdict, arguing that the trial judge failed to properly charge the jury with respect to s. 139(1) of the Highway Traffic Act (concerning the duty owed by the deceased on entering a highway) and failed to instruct the jury on the proper range of damages for loss of care, guidance and companionship.  The defendant also argued the jury award was gross and excessive.

The trial judge advised that he intended to charge the jury by omitting the words underlined below.

That section therefore imposes a very positive duty on Michelle Vokes in this case, breach of which would clearly constitute negligence. On the other hand, this positive duty on Ms. Vokes does not relieve Mr. Palmer who was operating his motor vehicle on the [through] highway from exercising ordinary care in the circumstances.

Counsel for the defendant did not object to the charge and in fact described the charge as an

“exercise in perfection”.  The Court of Appeal held that while the failure to object is not fatal, in most cases, an alleged misdirection or non-direction will not result in a new trial unless a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred.

The remainder of the appeal was also dismissed, as under s. 118 of the Courts of Justice Act the judge may give a range of damages, but is not obligated to do so.  In addition, the threshold for overturning a jury`s award of damages is very high.  The assessment must be so inordinately high as to constitute a wholly erroneous assessment of the loss of care, guidance and companionship, which was not the case. 

Trial Adjournments

Graham v. Vandersloot, 2012 ONCA 60 (C.A.)

In this case, litigation had proceeded at a leisurely pace since 2005. Trial had previously been adjourned when plaintiff's counsel erroneously advised the plaintiff had been in a second accident. Even though a trial date had been selected in 2009, the plaintiff did not arrange medical examinations until shortly before the trial was scheduled to occur in 2010. The plaintiff then sought a six month adjournment, which was denied.  She appealed the decision.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. It held that a key factor was that liability was admitted. Fading memories were less a concern where the primary evidence would be expert opinions. In addition, the defendant would not suffer non-compensable prejudice if a six month adjournment was granted. The failure of plaintiff's counsel to advance the litigation was not to be held against the plaintiff.

Many of the changes to the Rules in 2010 were aimed at ensuring that cases move efficiently through the system and it would seem that late requests for adjournments should generally be avoided. The Graham decision seems to suggest, however, that courts will be generous in granting adjournments to ensure cases are determined on their merits, especially where liability is not an issue.

Deduction of Collateral Benefits at Trial

Brown v. Campbell, (2012) 109 O.R. (3rd) 306 (S.C.J.)

After a jury trial where the plaintiff was awarded damages for past income loss, the defendant asked the judge to reduce the amount by long term disability benefits received the plaintiff. The plaintiff was self-employed and had purchased a long term disability policy for himself. The request for the deduction had not been made at trial, and had first arisen when the final judgment was being taken out. Both parties had addressed the issue in their evidence. The jury award for past income loss did not match either the amount suggested by the plaintiff or the defendant. Justice Nolan refused to make a deduction post trial. She held the defendant should have made be request at trial so she could have charged the jury on it. In addition, since the jury's verdict was less than the amounts submitted by both parties, it appeared the jury had in fact made the deduction in their assessment of the damages.

One issue left open by the Court is whether the disability benefits would have been deductible in any event, given that the plaintiff was self-employed and Justice Nolan noted the law is not settled with respect to whether LTD benefits purchased privately are captured by s. 267.8 of the Insurance Act.

Costs - Reasonableness of Disbursements

Hamfler v. 1682787 Ontario Inc., [2011] O.J. No. 6190 (S.C.J.)

This is a useful case with respect to recovery of disbursements for expert reports following a trial. Justice Edwards applied a deep discount on several of the plaintiff's doctors’ and accountant’s fees for reports and trial preparation.

The jury awarded the plaintiff $188,000 in damages. He sought $87,600 in fees and $93,500 in disbursements. The main issue was the reasonableness of the disbursements.

Justice Edwards quoted Justice Borins in Moon v. Sher (2004), 246 D.L.R. (4th) 440 (C.A.) in holding that “a disbursement will be recoverable provided that it is both reasonable, not excessive and has been charged to the client." The following factors should be taken into account in determining reasonableness:

1. Did the evidence of the expert make a contribution to the case, and was it relevant to the issues?
2. Was the evidence of marginal value or was it crucial to the ultimate outcome at trial?
3. Was the cost of the expert or experts disproportionate to the economic value of the issue at risk?
4. Was the evidence of the expert duplicated by other experts called by the same party? Was the report of the expert overkill or did it provide the court with the necessary tools to properly conduct its assessment of a material issue?
(paragraph 17).

- Tara Pollitt

Costs in Cases Where There are Multiple Defendants

Lawson v. Vierson, 2012 ONCA 25 (C.A.)

How will a court apportion costs where both the plaintiff and a co-defendant fail to accept offers to settle/contribute?

Lawson was in two motor vehicle accidents seven months apart. The actions were consolidated and proceeded to trial. The first defendant, Hart, offered to settle for $300,000. The second defendants, the Viersons, offered to settle or contribute by making a $100,000 payment to Lawson. Lawson’s offer was $1,250,000.

The jury found the injuries suffered were separate and distinct, and made separate damages assessments for each accident. The net amount awarded against the Viersons was $7,926.71 and $344,260.37 against Hart. The trial judge awarded Lawson costs of $482,000 apportioned 35% against the Viersons and 65% against Hart. The Viersons appealed.

At issue was the interplay of the costs consequences of r. 49.10 and r. 49.11. Rule 49.11 provides that where there are multiple defendants “alleged to be jointly or jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff in respect of a claim and rights of contribution or indemnity may exist between the defendants, the costs consequences prescribed by rule 49.10 do not apply to an offer to settle”.

The Court of Appeal held:

[49] In the circumstances of this case, it is significant that the combined Viersens and Hart offers exceeded the Lawsons’ recovery. The reason that the combined total exceeded the Lawsons’ recovery was because of the Viersens offer. When the Viersens offer is viewed in context rather than in isolation, it is therefore apparent that the offer was a genuine and generous offer to settle and, particularly when taken together with the Hart offer, complied with the spirit of rule 49.10. In these circumstances, the Viersens offer is the type of offer that, as contemplated by rule 49.13, ought to be given considerable weight in arriving at a costs award.

[50] Further, the trial judge appears to have discounted the fact the Viersens offer far exceeded the amount of the award made against them. Although the allegation of joint and several liability meant that pursuant to rule 49.11 the presumption of costs consequences in rule 49.10 did not apply, it would not, as the trial judge found, have been “impossible” or “negligent” for Ms. Lawson to have accepted the Viersens offer. The claim of joint and several liability that made the Viersens offer non-compliant with rule 49.11 was not made out at trial. In light of the jury’s award, the Viersens offer can, therefore, only be seen as having been very reasonable. Contrary to the view expressed by the trial judge, it would have been no more impossible or negligent for Ms. Lawson to have accepted the Viersens offer, than for any plaintiff to accept an offer to settle for an amount substantially less than the amount claimed. Given the outcome at trial, an accurate assessment of Ms. Lawson’s claim was that there was no joint and several liability. As a result, accepting the Viersens offer would not have prejudiced the claim against Mr. Hart and, therefore, would have been the correct decision.

Justice Rouleau awarded costs against the Viersons up to the date their offer was served equal to 35% of Lawson’s costs incurred to the date of the offer. The Viersons were entitled to their partial indemnity costs from the date of their offer payable by Hart since their offer was also an offer to contribute.

Although this case may have somewhat unusual circumstances, I suggest that those defending cases where there are multiple defendants should take it into consideration when making offers.

- Tara Pollitt

Court of Appeal - Striking a Jury Notice

There is an interesting recent Court of Appeal decision in which the court discusses the appropriateness of a jury notice where there is a significant pre-accident medical condition. In Placzek v Green, (January 26, 2012, Ontario Court of Appeal) the plaintiff was injured in a rear end collision. The plaintiff had suffered from "severe fibromyalgia" for many years before the accident. The defendant argued that, to the extent that the plaintiff's physical problems interfered with her life after the accident, both problems were attributable in whole or in the main to the serious pre-existing condition and not to the relatively minor accident involving the vehicle driven by the defendant.

The trial judge struck the jury at the outset of the trial and held that, with respect to damages, despite the plaintiff's prior physical problems, the injuries suffered as a result of the car accident had caused significant problems for the plaintiff. The trial judge awarded damages in the amount of $919,237.

The defendant appealed on the basis that the trial judge should not have discharged the jury and that she did not quantify the damages on the basis of a rational analysis of the evidence.

With respect to discharging the jury, the Court of Appeal pointed out that the decision to discharge a jury is a discretionary one and that the court will defer to the exercise of that discretion unless it is shown that it was exercised on a wrong principle or that the exercise in the circumstances can be properly characterized as arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable.

In this case, the trial judge dismissed the jury on the basis of the anticipated complexity of the evidence to come relevant to the damage assessment. The complexity arose out of the plaintiff's pre-existing medical condition and the need to determine the impact of that condition on the plaintiff's post accident medical condition. In addition, there was competing expert evidence relating to the plaintiff's lost income and loss of future income claims. The plaintiff was a self-employed realtor and there were several factual variables relevant to her lost income claims. Finally there was competing and somewhat complex medical, engineering and biomedical evidence.

The Court of Appeal acknowledged that the defendant had made a powerful argument in support of his position that this was not really a complicated case at all, but found that they were unable to describe the trial judge's characterization of the evidentiary complexity as arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. The Court of Appeal acknowledged that other judges might have reached a different assessment of the complexity of the evidence and declined to strike the jury, but that is not a basis upon which the trial judge's exercise of her discretion can be interfered with.

Of interest, the Court of Appeal went on to discuss other factors which the trial judge thought supported the exercise of her discretion in favor of striking the jury. For example, the Court of Appeal was of the view that the manner in which some of the evidence might be put before the jury and the advantages or disadvantages that one side or the other might have as a consequence, is irrelevant to the decision as to whether the jury should be struck before the trial started. Also, concerns about the position taken by the defendant with respect to liability could not provide any basis for striking a jury.

However, because the trial judge made it clear in her reasons that she struck the jury because of the anticipated evidentiary complexity on matters relating to damages, errors in respect of other matters considered did not taint the exercise of the trial judge's discretion.

With respect to the second ground of appeal, the defendant argued that the trial judge did not attempt to quantify the damages based on a critical assessment of the evidence, but instead simply picked a point somewhere in the middle between the various scenarios advanced by the parties. The Court of Appeal gave short shrift to that argument which apparently did not have much basis in evidence.

This case should be of some concern to defendants who believe that their cases are best determined by a jury. In most injury cases, certainly most cases which proceed to trial, there are issues relating to pre-existing medical conditions and there are issues relating to the calculation of future lost income. We certainly hope that Courts will not develop the habit of striking juries on those types of cases.

- Colin Osterberg

Leave to call nine witnesses denied

The rules of evidence allow for three expert witnesses to be called at trial. The plaintiff in Leonard v. Kline ,[2011] ONSC 2730 (S.C.J.) sought leave to call nine expert witnesses at her upcoming jury trial. The list of proposed experts included a psychiatrist, psychologist, vocational expert, vocational rehabilitation consultant, accountant/actuary and others.

The issue at the plaintiff’s upcoming trial was her earning capacity. The plaintiff sought to have each expert witness give an opinion on whether she would be able to engage in gainful employment. The plaintiff’s argument was two-fold: 1) each expert approaches the issue from a different area of expertise; and 2) the jury should know what the “weight of expert” evidence is on the issue.

The defendant argued that this would be duplicitous [sic - duplicative]. The defendant only intended to call two expert witnesses.

Ellies J. did not agree with the plaintiff’s “weight of expert evidence” argument expressing his concern with trials becoming battles of the experts. He went on to consider the eight factors listed in Burgess (Litigation Guardian of) v. Wu , [2005] O.J. No. 929. His decision focused on factor seven – the degree to which there is duplication in the proposed opinions of different experts.

Upon determining that some of the proposed expert witnesses were duplicitous [sic - duplicative]. , Ellies J. proceeded to divide them into groups based on shared opinions, whether they prepared joint reports, and whether they used similar tests upon the plaintiff in which their opinion was based. The plaintiff was then given the option to choose one expert witness from each group.

This decision seems to be a good example of the court fulfilling its "gatekeeper" role with respect to experts.

Thanks to Barb Legate for this comment on our post on McNeill v. Filthaut, regarding the current debate over the testimony of accident benefits assessors:

"A point that seems to be missed in some of these analyses is that notwithstanding the provisions of Rules 4 and 53, those rules are merely a codification of the law that stated with Amertek. Rules 4 and 53 are part of the Mohan criteria, and fall under the "any exclusionary rule" branch. So, although there are exclusionary rules for experts a party retains, that does not end the analysis. If a witness is to give opinion evidence, the witness has to be qualified as an expert. Part of the qualification exercise is to enquire into bias. Bias also enters into the relevance assessment. See CA decision in Abbey.

IMHO, those cases that strain to differentiate treating opinions from AB opinions from DAC opinions and retained expert opinions have missed the basic law: you want to call a witness to give an opinion, then follow Mohan. No fancy differentiations needed."

Rule 53.03 does not Apply to Accident Benefits Assessors - Beasley not Followed

You may recall that we blogged about Justice Moore's decision in Beasley v. Barrand, which held that accident benefits assessors could not testify as they had not complied with the new r. 53 pertaining to experts. A new decision was released on April 26, 2011 which refused to follow Beasley.

In McNeill v. Filthaut, 2011 ONSC 265 (S.C.J.), the defendants sought to call DAC assessors to testify at trial. The plaintiff objected on the basis that they had not provided r. 53.03 compliant reports.

Justice MacLeod-Beliveau held that r. 53.03 does not apply to individuals retained by non-parties to the litigation.

Justice MacLeod-Beliveau held that since r. 4.1.01 (acknowledgment of expert's duty) refers to experts "engaged by a party", it does not apply to experts retained by non-parties, such as accident benefits assessors. Interpreting the rules otherwise potentially deprives the Court of relevant evidence.

There are now two different lines of decisions regarding the testimony of non-party experts. It will be necessary for the Court of Appeal to clarify this important area of the law.

Threshold Motion Successful

Rajic v. Atkins, [2011] CanLII O.N.S.C. 1024 (S.C.J.)

In this Bill 59 action, the defendant brought a motion to have the action dismissed on the basis that the plaintiff failed to meet threshold after the jury retired to consider its verdict.

Justice Wilson granted the motion and dismissed the action. She found that the plaintiff was an unreliable historian and that there were comments in numerous medical reports about exaggeration, psychogenic pain and illness behavior. She found that the plaintiff’s self report could not be used as a basis for diagnosis because of the many inconsistencies in statements that he made. Since the plaintiff’s experts relied to a great extent on the truthfulness of what the plaintiff reported to them, she did not attach significant weight to their opinions.

The defendant had obtained surveillance of the plaintiff showing him engaged in various activities such as walking without a limp, carrying a 10lb bag of potatoes, clearing snow off his car, working under the hood of his car for 45 minutes, mowing the lawn, raking and bending down to pull weeds. Justice Wilson did not accept the explanation that he was having “one of his good days” when he was filmed by the investigator. Justice Wilson held that his sworn evidence at trial concerning his pain and limitations were inconsistent with the level of function demonstrated on the surveillance tapes.

Credibility is extremely important in a threshold motion and tools such as surveillance can be invaluable, as was seen in this case.

Settlement of Accident Benefits is Not an Admission Threshold Met in Tort

Anand v. Belanger, 2010 ONSC 2345 (CanLii)

The plaintiff was injured when she was struck by a stolen vehicle. State Farm was the plaintiff’s accident benefits provider, and was named as a tort defendant pursuant to the uninsured motorist provisions of the policy.

State Farm paid IRBs until the 104 week mark, when it terminated benefits on the basis that Ms. Anand did not suffer a complete inability to engage in any employment for which she was reasonably suited by education, training or experience. At a mediation, the parties settled past and future IRBs for $100,000. Ms. Anand signed a release that included a provision that the settlement was not an admission of liability.

At the tort trial, the plaintiff sought to preclude State Farm from alleging the plaintiff did not meet threshold on the basis that it had paid for past and future IRBs, which constituted an implicit admission.

Justice Stinson held that payment of IRBs does not amount to an admission in the tort action. The plaintiff signed a release specifically agreeing that the settlement was not an admission of liability. In addition, in its capacity as the accident benefits carrier, State Farm had contractual duties and a duty of utmost good faith in dealing with its insured, Ms. Anand. As a tort defendant, State Farm owed no such duties. Accordingly, State Farm was free to argue the plaintiff did not meet threshold.

Justice Stinson's decision is sensible, especially given the differing characteristics of accident benefits and tort. It also underscores the importance of including a paragraph in releases that settlement is not an admission of liability.

Tort Defendant May Call SABS Assessors as Fact Witnesses

You may recall that we recently blogged on the case of Beasley v. Barrand, in which Justice Moore held that accident benefits assessors could not be called as experts to testify for the tort defendant at trial. The link is here:

http://ontarioinsurancelaw.blogspot.com/2010/10/tort-defendant-not-permitted-to-call.html

In Anand v. State Farm (unreported decision, April 23, 2010), Justice Stinson followed Justice Moore’s decision, but held that the accident benefits assessors could be called as fact witnesses. They were not permitted to testify about their conclusions or opinions, but could testify about their observations of the plaintiff.

Filing Expert Reports as Exhibits at Trial - Part 2

In our last post, we discussed the Clark v. Zigrossi decision, where Justice Brown held that whether a party can file an expert’s report and call viva voce evidence from that expert is a matter of the court’s discretion.

In coming to this conclusion, Justice Brown undertook an analysis of the origins of the position that the report of an expert witness who testifies does not become an exhibit unless counsel agree or the court so orders. The approach was traced back to the 1974 Court of Appeal decision in Ferraro v. Lee (1974), 2 O.R. (2d) 417 (C.A.), in which the purpose of s. 52(2) of the Evidence Act was examined and it was found that the intention of the Legislature was to provide for the introduction into evidence of the medical report so that the party tendering it might be relieved from having to call the doctor to give evidence. It was then reasoned that a party cannot therefore proceed both to file the report and call the doctor. In drawing this conclusion, the Court of Appeal disagreed with the earlier case of Snyder v. Siutters, [1970] 3 O.R. 789 (H.C.J.), in which the trial judge granted leave to file the reports of doctors who were called to give viva voce evidence.

In Snyder v. Siutters, Wright J. held that it was in the interests of the administration of justice not only that the medical reports should be available in their entirety, but that if they are available, viva voce evidence of the practitioner should also be available. He went on to describe three great advantages of making both the reports and the experts’ testimony available to the jury, which Justice Brown found to possess a certain attractiveness. The advantages being that:

1) it enables a fixed and coherent opinion by the doctor to be put before the Court;
2) it enables the doctor, if he testifies to explain the technical language, and any other matters that arise by reason of evidence or other developments of the trial, and it gives the opposite party the right to cross-examine; and
3) it preserves for the jury room in an exact way the testimony of the doctor.

The Court of Appeal has subsequently interpreted Ferraro v. Lee and held that it is a matter of judicial discretion as to whether a party may both call an expert and file his report.

Thanks to our articling student, Alexandra Lacko, for contributing this post.

Filing Expert Reports as Exhibits at Trial - Part 1

Does Expert Testimony Preclude the Expert’s Report as an Exhibit?

In Clark v. Zigrossi, [2010] O.J. No. 3954 (Ont. Sup. Ct.), Justice Brown made a mid-trial ruling on whether an expert report can be filed as an exhibit even though the expert will be testifying at trial.

The plaintiff was seeking damages for injuries he alleged to have suffered in a July 2003 collision with the car driven by the defendant. The defendant had admitted liability and the jury was to assess damages. The plaintiff retained as an expert, Dr. Joseph Kwok, an orthopaedic surgeon who had prepared an expert report based on his examination of the plaintiff. The plaintiff served Dr. Kwok’s report on the defendant and gave the defendant notice pursuant to s. 52(2) of the Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.23. The plaintiff indicated his intention to adduce expert evidence “by either calling them to testify or by filing their reports.” At trial, plaintiff’s counsel sought leave both to call Dr. Kwok to give viva voce evidence and to mark his expert report as an exhibit, with copies of the report being provided to the jury so that they could follow the doctor’s evidence. Defendant’s counsel objected and submitted that the plaintiff must elect either to file the report or elicit viva voce evidence from the doctor. Defendant’s counsel acknowledged that if Dr. Kwok’s report was to be filed instead of him giving oral evidence at trial, she would require his presence to cross-examine him on his report, so Dr. Kwok’s attendance at trial would be necessary regardless of which path was taken.

Justice Brown held that the court possessed the discretion to permit an expert’s report to be filed where the expert intended to give viva voce evidence at trial. The needs of jurors to follow and understand the evidence should inform the exercise of judicial discretion.

Ultimately, in the circumstances of the case, Justice Brown did not think that the jury would encounter much difficulty in following Dr. Kwok’s evidence without having copies of his report and so it was not filed as an exhibit.

Justice Brown’s analysis affirms that there is no hard and fast rule that exists as to whether a party must elect either to file an expert’s report or call the expert to give viva voce evidence. In a jury trial, whether a party may call a health care expert to testify and also file his report as an exhibit remains a matter of discretion for the trial judge to determine.

The decision contains a good summary of the case law regarding filing expert reports and calling viva voce evidence. In our next post we will summarize those decisions.

Thanks to our articling student, Alexandra Lacko, for contributing this post.