The court dismissed a defence application for a pre-trial video deposition of an expert, finding no direct evidence of unavailability and preferring trial video testimony.
Rule 11-6(8) must be given effect: materials must relate to the preparation of the opinion to be producible; notes made by defence experts during plaintiffs' expert evidence did not relate to preparation and are not required to be produced, but time data/timesheets reflecting work spent preparing the expert reports are within the rule and must be produced regardless of where or how they are stored.
Court held Detective Constable Sangha could testify about general urban street jargon, but not as an expert translator or interpreter of Punjabi-English intercepted calls.
The court refused to make a final custody order on summary trial, kept the existing interim custody arrangement with the father, and set an expedited trial for further evidence.
The court applied the 2009 Civil Procedure Rules to this pre-2009 action, used the 1989 Tariff A as the baseline but exercised discretion to depart from tariff because tariff-based quantification would be excessive, awarded lump sum party-and-party costs of CAD 300,000 to the defendant, reduced the claimed US expert fee for Dr. Parent to USD 35,000, allowed other disbursements totalling CAD 24,279.88 and USD 50,869.06, and ordered no GST on the costs award.
Source excerpt
Costs assessment
Tariff application vs lump sum
Application of civil procedure rules (2009) to pre-2009 actions
The court held the Strata Owners could not retain an expert previously consulted by the plaintiff because the prior retainer involved confidential information and litigation strategy.