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 ordered the plaintiff to attend a vocational assessment, finding it necessary and proportionate to address earning-capacity issues distinct from prior defence testing.
The court held Dr. Keith Reutter’s affidavit inadmissible on a certification application, finding he lacked relevant expertise, independence, and reliable survey methodology.
Dr. Moore is permitted to give opinion evidence limited to the psychology of memory (the nine specified memory‑related topics) because that evidence is logically relevant, necessary and can be presented impartially; he is not permitted to give opinion evidence about police interrogation techniques (including the Reid Technique) nor to opine on the ultimate reliability, voluntariness or truthfulness of Mr. Garnier’s statement, and his report is excluded because it crosses into advocacy, lacks sufficient foundation on interrogation science, and risks usurping the trier of fact.
Source excerpt
The court dismissed an application to strike a contract claim after the plaintiff sued opposing experts in Small Claims Court. No wilful contempt or serious prejudice was proven.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that expert independence and impartiality can affect admissibility, but exclusion should occur only in clear cases of inability or unwillingness to assist the court.
Travel disbursement allowed because applicants established special and unique justification (counsel's longstanding involvement and specialized knowledge of the EEM error and related proceedings) making local counsel inappropriate; expert disbursements were reasonable at time retained but reduced by 25% to account for mixed success and limited utility of parts of the expert's evidence.
Source excerpt
The court allowed a post-conviction application to reopen the defence case for fresh expert evidence and set aside the conviction, but declined to order a mistrial.
The court held that expert evidence on the Hells Angels’ nature and criminal purpose was admissible, but barred an opinion that all members commit crime.
Ruling on admissibility of expert reports about rust in laundry equipment: the first and third reports were admitted with limits, while the second was excluded.
The Court of Appeal held Rule 28 did not permit examination of the appellant’s retained psychiatrist to obtain a revised opinion using surveillance evidence already in the respondents’ possession.
Explore more
