Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Court of Appeal upheld a jury verdict for the defendants in a slip-and-fall negligence action, finding no reversible error in excluding one expert test.
Where an expert opinion report is filed after the Finish Date it is not disclosed in accordance with Rule 55 and leave of the Court is required to rely upon it; a judge must exclude such late expert evidence unless satisfied it would be unjust to exclude it, and in exercising discretion the Court must consider factors including nature of the new opinion, timing of the information, prejudice, consent and trial readiness; in the present case leave nunc pro tunc was granted for both the Defendant's corrected supplemental report and the Plaintiff's rebuttal report given the parties' agreements anâŠ
Source excerpt
The court denied leave under Rule 55.13(2)(c) because the request was made at the last minute (week before trial), risked prejudice and ambush by introducing definitions or new opinions not in the written report, many requested terms were not addressed in the report so the content and qualifications for those definitions were unclear, and the explanations sought could be obtained from the existing reports and by cross-examination; under Rule 55 written reports are the normal mode of expert direct evidence and the narrow "justice requires" exception was not satisfied.
Source excerpt
Chambers reasons in a family law matter addressing a unilateral line-of-credit transfer, interim child support, disclosure, and expert-report timing.
The court struck parts of an expert report that relied on CAB PRO screening outputs, finding the underlying conclusions could not be accepted without production and cross-examination.
Family law trial about parenting time, decision-making, and communications. The court admitted a psychiatric report, weighed two s. 211 reports, and ordered equal parenting time with shared responsibilities.
La Cour a admis certaines constatations factuelles de lâexpert, mais a exclu ses opinions sur la causalitĂ© et le mĂ©canisme biomĂ©canique faute de mĂ©thodologie explicite et de fiabilitĂ© dĂ©montrĂ©e.
The court admitted most of Dr. Clelandâs expert evidence on neck anatomy and penetrating neck injuries, but excluded his photo-marking evidence and addendum report.
Application dismissed: the defendants were not entitled to a second IME. The court held Dr. Chapmanâs use of âqueryâ did not show an inability to opine.
The court granted sole conduct of sale, disclosure orders, a non-disposition order, a $5,000 fine, and regular costs after continued non-compliance and delay.
Explore more
