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 admitted Staff Sergeant Bernier’s expert and factual evidence on BlackBerry analysis and RDX reports, and allowed his PowerPoint exhibits at trial.
The court excluded Dr. Ritter’s reports, holding that his U.S.-based training and reliance on California practice made him unqualified to opine on the British Columbia standard of care.
Applying the White Burgess two-stage test the judge found the proffered opinion narrowly met logical relevance but failed on necessity and the gatekeeping balancing: the marginal probative value was outweighed by risks of distraction, prejudice and a likely contested expert battle given competing schools of thought and deficiencies in the report; accordingly the opinion was excluded and Dr. Moore was not qualified as an expert for this matter.
Source excerpt
The court qualified a Telus employee as an expert on cellular service and cell-tower location evidence, rejecting the accused’s objection based on lack of formal credentials.
The court qualified David Mak as an expert in Rogers cellular service, holding that extensive experience and training can suffice without formal credentials.
The court dismissed the defendants’ application for a second IME, finding it was not shown to be necessary for equal footing and was not proportionate.
The British Columbia Supreme Court dismissed an appeal from a provincial court assault conviction, rejecting arguments about videotaped statements and expert evidence on injury mechanism.
The court denied leave to reopen redaction objections to an expert report, finding no exceptional circumstances and leaving any overreach concerns for closing submissions.
Judge held that Dr. Bernstein's rebuttal report, read as a whole, substantively complied with Rules 55.04 and 55.05 such that any minor formal deficiencies did not warrant exclusion or substantial redaction because the report explained the basis for disagreement and exclusion would cause disproportionate prejudice; similarly, Dr. Drummond's rebuttal report was admissible because no timely written objection was made, his qualifications were disclosed and he had coroner and emergency medicine experience relevant to the issues, so any contested matters should be resolved at trial through cross-e…
Source excerpt
On a voir dire, the court held Constable Matthew Rowat met the Mohan test and could testify as an expert on fentanyl and methamphetamine consumption rates.
Explore more
