Article Figures & Data
Tables
Potential danger Cases Lesson for expert Usurping the role of fact finder R. v. Mohan4 Admitted evidence must be relevant and necessary, come from a properly qualified expert, and not be subject to an exclusionary rule. Bringing in nonvalidated novel science R. v. J.-L.J.5 Theories that are novel science undergo special scrutiny; they must be tested, subjected to peer review, have known error rates and standards, and have general acceptance. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals1 Hearsay being used by experts R. v. Abbey6 Experts can use hearsay and other information not in evidence, but the fact-finder decides the weight of the opinion and whether the information used is valid. R. v. Lavallee7 Reviewing reports with lawyers Moore v. Getahun8 It is acceptable to review reports with lawyers and make edits, but the expert must still be fair, objective and non-partisan. Reports entered into proceedings as an aide memoire but not as evidence Moore v. Getahun8 Information that is not put into evidence cannot be considered. Being in a dual role Westerhof v. Gee Estate15 Expert opinions can come from different types of experts:
Participant experts are treating physicians.
Non-party experts are independent evaluators seeing the evaluee for purposes other than the litigation.
Litigant experts are independent evaluators seeing the evaluee for the litigation.Addressing bias Westerhof v. Gee Estate15 The courts are very concerned with bias:
There is risk of advocating for the party who hired the expert.
Special care must be taken to admit only unbiased evidence.
Experts must strive to provide evidence that is fair, objective, and nonpartisan, although it need not necessarily be seen to be impartial.
Past bias can potentially taint an expert's credibility.White Burgess Langille Inman v. Abbott and Haliburton Co.17 Daggitt v. Campbell16 Ghost writing Kushnir v. Macari19 Experts should strive to write all portions of their reports and not employ ghost writers. Charging of cancellation fees Kushnir v. Macari19 Experts should charge reasonable fees for cancelled appointments.
Jump to section
- Article
- Abstract
- Historical Lessons on Admissibility
- Historical Lessons on Hearsay Evidence
- A New Lesson on Draft Reports
- Recent Lessons on “Hired Guns” and Bias
- The Impact of Bias on Future Credibility
- Expert Evidence From Treating Physicians
- Judicial Steps If Apparent Bias Is Present
- Ghost Writing and Cancellation Fees
- Conclusions
- Acknowledgments
- Footnotes
- References
- Figures & Data
- Info & Metrics