R. v. Adams-Clarke

R. v. Adams-Clarke Court Supreme Court Date 2023-11-28 Citation 2023 NSSC 434 Docket 516697 Judge/Registrar/Adjudicator Bodurtha, John P. (Honourable Justice) Document Type Decision Decision Content SUPREME COURT OF Nova Scotia Citation: R. v. Adams-Clarke, 2023 NSSC 434 Date: 20231128 Docket: 516697 Registry: Halifax Between: His Majesty the King Plaintiff v. Justin Ronald Adams-Clarke Defendant Decision – Voir Dire #3 Proposed Expert Witness Qualifications Judge: The Honourable Justice John P. Bodurtha Heard: November 27, 2023, in Halifax, Nova Scotia Oral Decision: November 28, 2023 Written Decision: October 30, 2024 Counsel: Janine Kidd and Cory Roberts, for the Plaintiff Laura McCarthy and Godfred Chongatera, for the Defendant By the Court (orally): [1] The accused, Justin Adams-Clarke, has given notice of his intent to call Dr. Kenneth Salsman as an expert witness pursuant to section 657.3(1) of the Criminal Code at his trial for offences contrary to sections 235(1) and 117.01(1) of the Criminal Code. [2] Dr. Salsman is being proposed as an expert as a trained medical practitioner. His proposed areas of qualification are: Dr. Kenneth Salsman as a trained medical practitioner, is able to give opinion evidence on loss of consciousness including causes of loss of consciousness such as choking and blunt force trauma and the effect of loss of consciousness on an individual. [3] The Supreme Court of Canada consolidated the test for the admissibility of expert evidence in R. v. Mohan, 1994 SCC 80 (“Mohan”), paras. 17–21: Admission of expert evidence depends on the application of the following criteria: (a) relevance; (b) necessity in assisting the trier of fact; (c) the absence of any exclusionary rule; (d) a properly qualified expert. [4] The application of the four Mohan criteria is case-specific. [5] I have considered Mohan and reviewed the case White Burgess Langille Inman v. Abbott and Haliburton Co., 2015 SCC 23 (“White Burgess”) along with the other authorities provided by counsel in reaching my decision. [6] I find that Dr. Salsman is impartial, independent and unbiased and the proposed expert evidence meets the Mohan criteria except for the last sentence in the report which is outside the scope of the proposed qualification. Therefore, the sentence “This strike is not permitted in Boxing due to its inherent danger.” shall be removed from the report. In addition, with respect to the qualifications proposed I will change the word “practitioner” to “Emergency Room Physician” as this better reflects his occupation from his testimony. [7] For counsel’s benefit, I see no need to caution Dr. Salsman with respect to his testimony based on his evidence in the voir dire. Should he stray into providing evidence regarding combat fighting then an objection may be raised, and an appropriate caution given to the witness at that time. I believe Dr. Salsman not knowing the circumstances of this case may have felt the need to bolster his medical knowledge and the proposed evidence with his knowledge and experience in combat fighting. However, this is outside the scope of his proposed qualifications and will not be permitted. Analogies based on his medical experience, such as blunt force trauma being similar to a car accident or a hold or grab in combat fighting, will need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis depending on the question posed to the witness. Bodurtha, J.