1 ANATOMY OF A MEDICAL EXPERT PAPER 3.1 Do No Harm (To Your Case): The Role of the Lawyer in Instructing the Medical Expert These materials were prepared by Albert Roos, QC, and Jessie Meikle-Kähs, both of Sugden, McFee & Roos LLP, Vancouver, BC, for the Continuing Legal Education Society of British Columbia, May Albert Roos, Q.C. and Jessie Meikle-Kähs
2 3.1.1 DO NO HARM (TO YOUR CASE): THE ROLE OF THE LAWYER IN INSTRUCTING THE MEDICAL EXPERT I. Counsel s Role in Instructing an Expert Concerning Elements of an Admissible Report... 1 II. III. What Advice Should We Give the Expert Regarding Maintaining a Complete File?... 3 Providing Your Expert with Complete Examination for Discovery Transcripts versus Providing Assumed Facts Drawn from Those Transcripts What is the Best Practice? Pros and Cons... 5 IV. Draft Report Do s and Don ts... 6 I. Counsel s Role in Instructing an Expert Concerning Elements of an Admissible Report It is counsel s role to instruct the expert what is required in terms of elements of a report, which are set out in Rule 11-6(1) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules ( SCCR ) and the expert s duty, which is set out in Rule The expert s duty is of utmost importance in ensuring that the report is admissible and for that reason, it will be discussed first. Rule 11-2(1) provides that the expert has a duty to assist the court and is not to be an advocate for any party. It is counsel s duty to make the expert aware of Rule 11-2(1) pursuant to Rule 11-2(2), which requires an expert to certify that he or she is aware of the duty, has made the report in conformity with that duty, and will give testimony in conformity with the duty. It is prudent to inform the expert of the duty and to highlight that the report should be written from a neutral perspective. It is counsel s job to use the report to make an argument, it is not the expert s role to argue or advocate within the report. Madam Justice Gropper s discussion of the expert report in Warkentin v. Riggs, 2010 BCSC 1706 provides a good overview of the risk that could materialize if the expert becomes an advocate (paras ). Gropper J. held that the report in that case was inadmissible because the expert was not neutral and impartial, but rather he acted as an advocate for the plaintiff. His opinion was biased and argumentative. Gropper J. held that the fact that the expert described himself as an Expert Medical Legal Consultant providing opinions on behalf of patients with chronic pain who are seeking legal remedies with respect to their condition meant that he did not consider himself to be an objective advisor to the court (para. 82). Likewise, Brown v. Raffan, 2013 BCSC 114 is another recent case where the court held that the expert had become an advocate for the plaintiff and therefore the court could not rely upon his report. In that case, the expert was the plaintiff s treating physician. He mentioned several times throughout the report that he thought the plaintiff was a blameless victim and that she had received no support from ICBC. Mr. Justice Verhoeven held that these types of comments had no proper place in an expert s report and conflicted with the expert s duty in Rule To illustrate his point, Verhoeven J. set out portions of the expert s report and underlined sentences that he described as the offending material (paras. 71 to 72).
3 3.1.2 Rule 11-6(1) provides the components that are required in an expert s report. These are: the expert s signature; the 11-2(2) certification; the expert s name, address and area of expertise; the instructions provided to the expert; the nature of the opinion being sought and the issues it relates to; the expert s opinion respecting the issues; the expert s reasons for his or her opinion including: (i) a description of factual assumptions; (ii) a description of any research conducted by the expert in respect to the opinion; and (iii) a list of every document relied on by the expert in forming the opinion. The court has held that compliance with the requirements for an expert report is not a matter of form: Jones v. Ma, 2010 BCSC 867. Indeed, where the expert has not provided the certificate of objectivity, the court may not consider the report: Warke v. Wildeman, 2012 BCSC 872 at para. 41. The Court of Appeal in Mazur v. Lucas, 2010 BCCA 473 discussed the purpose of Rule 11-6 stating:  New Rule 11-6 expands on what an expert was required to state under old Rule 40A, but does not alter the general principle that it is essential for the trier of fact to know the basis of an expert opinion so that the opinion can be evaluated. The Rule has a dual purpose. The second purpose is to allow the opposing party to know the basis of the expert s opinion so that they or their counsel can properly prepare for, and conduct, cross-examination of the expert, and if appropriate, secure a responsive expert opinion. The requirement that the expert must include a description of the factual assumptions on which the opinion is based (Rule 11-6(1)(f)(i)) codifies earlier case law such as Mr. Justice Lowry s decision in the case of Rowe v. Bobell Express Ltd., 2003 BCSC 472 where he said as follows: Rule 40A (now Rule 11-6) of the Rules of Court permits the opinion of an expert witness to be proven by tendering a statement of the opinion without the necessity of the witness being called. The statement must, however, contain the facts and assumptions on which the opinion is based. As I have said before, it is my view that the statement should set out all of the facts necessary to the opinion, but only those facts. The facts, known or assumed, should be immediately apparent. The reader should not have to cull them out of pages recording what was said in the course of interviews or observed during examinations or revealed by tests administered. Counsel must also ensure that the expert has all of the relevant documents necessary to complete the report and that the expert is aware that he or she must list and describe every document (in sufficient detail) that is relied on in forming the opinion pursuant to Rule 11-6(1)(f)(iii). In Turpin v. Manufacturers Life Insurance Company, 2011 BCSC 1159, Mr. Justice Wilson noted that the expert s list of documents that she had relied on was wholly inadequate. There, the expert had stated that she reviewed clinical manifestations of appendicitis and reviewed the literature for the delayed diagnosis of appendicitis. Wilson J. held that the expert had not identified what was reviewed to obtain the clinical manifestations referred to nor had she identified what literature she had relied upon (paras ).
4 3.1.3 Another word of caution from Turpin is in respect to the manner that the expert describes his or qualifications (Rule 11-6(1)(a) and (b)). The expert had indicated that she completed a residency in internal medicine and she was currently doing internal medicine. Wilson J. found that as a lay person the term internal medicine did not assist him in determining whether the expert was qualified (para. 14). II. What Advice Should We Give the Expert Regarding Maintaining a Complete File? The regime for disclosure of the expert s file is quite different under the SCCR then it was under the former Rules of Court. This section will consider the evolution of the jurisprudence in respect to this disclosure from the seminal case of Vancouver Community College v. Phillips Barratt, 1987 CanLII 2532 (B.C.S.C.) up to and including new Rule 11-6(8). Under the former Rules of Court, the expert s file was protected by lawyer s brief privilege until the expert was tendered as a witness at trial or his or her written report was tendered. When that occurred, there was an implied intention to waive the lawyer s brief privilege. If the expert was then cross-examined on the report, there was an obligation to produce relevant documents in the expert s possession which were or could be relevant to matters of substance in the expert s evidence or to the expert s credibility: Vancouver Community, supra, at para. 34. Another key case in the evolution of disclosure of the expert s file is Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, 1988 CanLII 3194 (B.C.S.C.). In that case, the issue was disclosure of the expert s file after the expert report was tendered, but before the expert was called at trial. The expert report had been tendered pursuant to s. 11 of the Evidence Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 116, which provided that an expert opinion and the facts on which the opinion is formed had to be disclosed at least 30 days before the expert testified. The defendants sought an order for disclosure of the facts on which the expert had based his opinion which was said to be original anthropological research. McEachern C.J., as he then was, ordered that the original research had to be disclosed in order to assist counsel to properly assess the expert report:  In my view, s. 11(1) must be given a reasonable meaning which best carries out its clear purpose, which is to assist opposing counsel, before an expert witness is called, to assess whether his opinion is supported by the facts upon which it is based. It is my conclusion, for the reasons just stated, that the defendants are entitled to examine the original data, notes and writings of the anthropologist upon which his report is based. In a subsequent decision in the same case (reported at 1988 CanLII 3195), McEachern C.J. considered the proper procedure when counsel made a claim to privilege over the contents of the expert s file. Specifically, if counsel wanted to maintain a claim to solicitor s privilege in respect to portions of an expert s file, then counsel had to make an oral or written claim for privilege:  If counsel wishes to maintain a claim to solicitor s privilege, I think it must be done by furnishing a reasonable description of the document or an edited copy and by making a specific oral or written claim to privilege which in rare cases might have to be supported by affidavit, but I would expect most such questions can be decided on the statements of counsel. If cross-examining counsel did not accept counsel s claim for privilege, then the judge could examine the document and make a determination as to privilege pursuant to former Rule 26(12) (Delgamuukw at para. 22).
5 3.1.4 The judicial evolution towards granting early disclosure of experts files can be seen in Lanthier v. Volk, 2006 BCSC 2092, where Mr. Justice Johnston discussed the rationale for such disclosure. Lanthier was a pre-trial chambers application brought by the plaintiff for production of a surveillance videotape that the defendant s solicitor had provided to two defence experts. Both experts referred to the surveillance video in their respective reports. The defendant argued that even though notice of the expert report had been given, the contents of the videotape remained privileged until the report was tendered at trial or the experts testified (paras. 8 and 15). In holding that the defendant had to disclose the videotape, Johnston J. noted that the trend in the jurisprudence over the preceding several years was away from trial by ambush towards pre-trial disclosure, either voluntary or otherwise (para. 16). He reasoned that pre-trial disclosure was necessary to prevent impediments to settlement and the possibility that late disclosure might lead to an adjournment of the trial. This was of particular concern in a jury trial where the risk of adjournment might arise in the middle of the trial when counsel decided to call the expert or tender the expert report (para. 16). Johnston J. held that privilege over the video had been waived by delivery of the expert reports and it was not possible for the opposing party to properly prepare without the videotape. Moreover, he noted that trial fairness and the promotion of efficiency in the trial process dictated that the videotape be disclosed (para. 17). Madam Justice Southin, writing for the Court of Appeal in Traynor v. Degroot, 2001 BCCA 556, provided judicial direction to the drafters of the SCCR in respect to the issue of expert disclosure before trial. The issue in Traynor was whether raw data in the hands of the expert neuropsychologist had to be disclosed. The master ordered disclosure of the raw data on the basis that the raw data and test results were the factual basis that underpinned the expert report. An appeal of the master s decision was dismissed at the Supreme Court. Further appeal to the Court of Appeal was also dismissed. Southin J.A., however, made it clear that disclosure of an expert s documents ought to be addressed in the Rules:  Those with authority over the Supreme Court Rules might wish to consider putting into Rule 40A a clear provision stating what class or classes of the documents of an expert, notice of a report of whom has been given to the other side, must be produced before trial. It seems that the drafters of the SCCR were cognizant of Southin J.A. s concerns in Traynor, as Rule 11-6(8) now deals specifically with disclosure of an expert s file upon demand. Specifically, pursuant to Rule 11-6(8), a party of record may request to review and copy the expert s file relating to the preparation of the opinion. If the request is made within 14 days before the scheduled trial date, the expert must comply with the request promptly. If the request is made at any other time, the expert must comply with the request at least 14 days before the scheduled trial date. Mr. Justice Myers recently discussed the meaning of relating to the preparation of the opinion in Rule 11-6(8) in First Majestic Silver Corp. v. Davila, 2012 BCSC Myers J. held that notes made by the expert during trial did not need to be disclosed because the notes were made after the opinion was prepared (paras. 9-11). The time records that related to the expert s time spent in preparing the report had to be disclosed (paras ). Given the obligation to disclose the entirety of the expert s file upon demand, it is prudent to educate experts that everything that is written down may be producible to opposing counsel upon demand. Therefore, it is best that written correspondence between counsel and the expert is kept to a minimum. The intention is not to have the expert cheat, but just to make sure that the expert is aware of the Rules and the fact that the lawyer s brief privilege over the expert s file is not indefinite. The ultimate goal in obtaining an expert report would be to have one final report and no drafts.
6 3.1.5 Realistically, however, this goal is rarely achieved. Therefore, counsel should educate experts that the expert s file will undoubtedly be carefully scrutinized after the report is tendered. This will be discussed in further detail under heading IV draft reports dos and don ts. III. Providing Your Expert with Complete Examination for Discovery Transcripts versus Providing Assumed Facts Drawn from Those Transcripts What is the Best Practice? Pros and Cons The issue of providing an expert with complete examination for discovery transcripts versus providing him or her with assumed facts has been somewhat of a contentious issue in the jurisprudence. The general opinion used to be that counsel should not provide the expert with the complete examination for discovery transcripts because the expert would be left to draw his or her own factual conclusions from the evidence: Johnson v. Goldsmid,  B.C.J. No (S.C.). In Croutch (Guardian ad litem of) v. B.C. Women s Hospital & Health Centre, 2001 BCSC 995, affirmed 2003 BCCA 472, Mr. Justice Lowry held that as a general rule experts should not be given access to discovery transcripts. Rather, counsel should provide the expert with facts that counsel was satisfied could be proven at trial. Lowry J., as he then was, was concerned that the expert would usurp the function of the trier of fact in weighing evidence: 17 In my view, expert witnesses should not base their opinions on discovery evidence which may or may not be read in at trial. Indeed, as a general rule, I do not consider they should be given access to discovery transcripts. The assessment of evidence is not their function, and there is no place for the delivery of an expert s opinion when it is based on facts drawn by the expert from what was said on discovery. The facts underlying an opinion are within the purview of counsel. It is counsel who must be satisfied they are facts that can be proven, and it is for counsel to settle with an expert witness the facts that are to be assumed for the purpose of the opinion. It is those facts that must then be set out clearly in the statement that is to be delivered in compliance with the Rules. [emphasis added] More recently, in Gish v. Hooper Insurance and Financial Services Inc., 2011 BCCA 232, Mr. Justice Lowry, writing for the majority of the Court of Appeal, referred to his earlier decision in Croutch on the issue of providing discovery transcripts to experts. Again, he emphasized his view that experts should not be left to make their own assessment of the evidence on the basis of discovery transcripts (para. 28). There is, however, authority holding that in some instances it is appropriate to provide the expert with discovery transcripts. For example, in Keefer Laundry Ltd. v. Pellerin Milnor Corp., 2007 BCSC 899, Mr. Justice N. Smith reasoned that in most cases the approach in Croutch ought to be followed. However, in some cases where the expert is asked to comment directly on the conduct of a party, for example, in professional negligence cases, it may be more convenient for counsel to provide portions of the discovery transcript to the expert and instruct the expert to assume the facts in the discovery testimony, but not to weigh the evidence against other evidence. Counsel should also instruct the expert to clearly set out the facts and assumptions drawn from the discovery transcript (para. 46). It should be noted that there is case law that holds that it may be particularly important for a plaintiff s expert to review the entirety of the defendant s examination for discovery transcript in medical negligence cases. The rationale for this position is that the plaintiff s expert ought to be aware of what considerations the defendant made in the course of treating the patient because this will go to whether the physician s clinical judgment met the applicable standard of care: Miller v. Budzinski et al., 2004 BCSC 1730 at paras. 442 and 443.
7 3.1.6 Recently Madam Justice Ker, in Friebel v. Omelchenko, 2013 BCSC 948, reviewed the jurisprudence regarding whether an expert should be provided with discovery transcripts or not. In Friebel, plaintiff s counsel objected to the admissibility of two defence expert reports on the basis that the expert had been provided with entire copies of the examination for discovery. Relying on the Croutch line of authority, plaintiff s counsel argued that it was improper to provide the transcripts and then leave the expert to draw his or her own conclusions as to which facts should be used to support the opinion. Kerr J. distinguished the situation whereby an expert is provided with transcripts and he or she weighs the evidence and provides a report without outlining or providing a statement of assumed facts. The problem with that scenario is that it is impossible for the trier of fact to determine what facts the expert has assumed or relied on and whether or not those facts have been proven in evidence (paras & 18). Conversely, in Ker J. s opinion, it is not a problem when an expert is provided with the examination for discovery transcripts and then he or she lists all of the material reviewed and outlines the factual assumptions upon which the opinion is based. This second scenario is not problematic because the trier of fact is able to properly assess the basis for the opinion and determine whether the factual assumptions that the expert relied upon have been proven in evidence (para. 25). Based on this jurisprudence, a good practice is to read through the examination for discovery transcript and provide the expert with an assumed statement of facts along with the discovery transcript and medical records. That way, it is not the expert s prerogative to come up with the assumed facts his or herself. This also helps to focus the expert s analysis. Support for this practice is found in Roe v. Dabbs et al., 2004 BCSC 957 at para. 54. In providing a statement of assumed facts, counsel should be extremely careful to ensure that the factual assumptions provided to the expert are founded in the evidence. This may involve a close reading of the medical records, discovery transcript, and any other relevant documents. Regardless of whether the expert is provided with transcripts, excerpts of transcripts, or a statement of assumed facts, when there are multiple defendants the expert must be warned that there will invariably be some conflicts in the defendants evidence. It is not the expert s job to weigh this evidence and determine which version he or she prefers. Rather, counsel should instruct the expert that he or she must simply accept that the transcripts accurately set out the various witnesses evidence. This may mean that in some cases, the expert has to voice an opinion based on alternative facts. IV. Draft Report Do s and Don ts When should we ask for a first draft and what if any discussion should take place between a lawyer and expert before and after the first draft and subsequent drafts are prepared? A good practice is for counsel to ask the expert to call him or her before the expert puts pen to paper (or fingers to keys as it were). This practice avoids any misunderstandings and counsel is able to ensure that the expert has understood the question at issue and the burden of proof. For example, physicians are used to dealing in medical certainties; therefore, it is important to ensure at the outset that the expert understands the civil burden of proof. The expert only has to provide an opinion that the injury at issue was more likely than not caused by the defendant (or whatever the specific issue happens to be). There is little utility in an expert report that is based on the standard of medical certainty particularly for a plaintiff.
8 3.1.7 The recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision in Moore v. Getahun, 2014 ONSC 237, suggests that counsel should not review draft reports nor should counsel have discussions with experts to review and shape a draft report. The court held that if after submitting the final expert report counsel requires clarification, then he or she should request clarification in writing and disclose the request to opposing counsel (paras ). It is important to note that Moore is based on the court s interpretation of Rule of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg Unlike the SCCR, Rule does not provide for disclosure of the entirety of the expert s file upon request. For this reason, Moore would likely not be followed in BC where the Rules already provide a certain level of transparency. At the time of writing, Moore had been appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal, but the appeal has not yet been set down for hearing. Moore was recently referred to in Thermapan Structural Insulated Panels Inc. v. Ottawa (City), 2014 ONSC 2365 as an illustration of the evolution of the expert in litigation in Ontario (para. 6). However, the court did not expressly accept or reject the Moore approach. Moore has not yet been judicially considered in BC; therefore, time will tell whether this strict approach is adopted. Counsel should attempt to keep the number of drafts to a minimum. That said, there is no problem with having two or three drafts of an expert report. However, permissible changes in the evolution of the report from the first draft to the final report should be in the nature of clarification and not go to the substance of the report. For example, it is crucial to review the draft report and ensure that it has the requisite level of precision necessary to assist the case. Counsel should take the opportunity to speak to the expert and provide feedback on how the expert can clarify the opinion by using plain language and avoiding medical jargon. There may be an occasion where a draft report changes significantly when the expert becomes aware of all the facts. This is situation that counsel should seek to avoid by ensuring that the expert has everything that he or she needs at the outset. In discussing draft reports with an expert, counsel should always keep in mind Finch J. s, as he then was, strong words of rebuke for counsel in Vancouver Community College v. Phillips Barratt, 1988 CanLII 2827,  B.C.J. No. 710 (S.C.). There, Finch J. held that counsel had participated far too much and inappropriately in the preparation of the expert s report. Finch J. had earlier ordered the disclosure of the expert s file in an chambers decision discussed above under heading II: 1987 CanLII 2532,  B.C.J. No The issue in Vancouver Community College ( VCC ) was whether the architects and engineers who were involved in a substantial renovation and construction project on VCC s downtown campus were liable for cost overruns, a shortfall in VCC s space requirements, and other deficiencies in the project. VCC claimed damages exceeding $9 million. VCC adduced four expert reports and called each witness to testify. The evidence of Robert Atkins, a quantity surveyor, was key to VCC s case. In particular, VCC s other experts, two architects and engineer premised their reports on Mr. Atkins conclusions or assumptions. Finch J. s preliminary view of Mr. Atkins was that he was partisan, argumentative and not objective. Finch J. took particular issue with the manner in which Mr. Atkins report was prepared. Specifically, Mr. Atkins expert report was substantially revised about 10 times after round table discussions with counsel. Finch J. emphasized that he had no issue with counsel consulting with experts while the report was being prepared. However, in so doing, counsel must ensure that the expert s independence is not compromised:
9 3.1.8 I in no way wish to condemn the practice of an expert s editing or rewriting his own reports prepared for submission in evidence, or for that matter, prepared solely for the advice of counsel or litigants. Nor do I wish to condemn the practice of counsel consulting with his experts in the pre-trial process while reports are in the course of preparation. It is, however, of the utmost importance in both the re-writing and consultation processes referred to that the expert s independence, objectivity and integrity not be compromised. I have no doubt that in many cases these ends are achieved, and counsel and experts alike respect the essential boundaries concerning the extent to which a lawyer may properly discuss the expert s work product as it develops towards its final form. In VCC, Finch J. held that counsel had not observed the boundaries and had participated far too much, and inappropriately, in the preparation of the report. Some of the aspects of the report that Finch J. took issue with included: Counsel suggesting additions and deletions that went to the substance of the opinion and the way it was expressed, rather than to permissible issues such as factual hypotheses or definitions of issues. All of the suggested changes were one way in that they supported VCC s case. All criticisms of VCC, the Ministry of Education ( MOE ) or their respective staff were deleted. References to VCC or MOE being responsible for difficulties or problems in the construction project were deleted. Mr. Atkins opinion that it was inadvisable for a designer to also be responsible for cost planning was deleted from the first draft, although he still held that opinion at trial. Mr. Atkins deleted his statement that the defendants believed at the design stage that they had the entire budget to spend on the project. He also deleted his statement that the defendants did have such authority. Mr. Atkins used Statistics Canada data to calculate the cost index of the project, instead of his own authored Construction Data Systems index, which increased VCC s claim by $800,000. Mr. Atkins initial opinion was that the project was short 18,000 square feet. In subsequent drafts, he revised this to be 21,000 square feet and then 30,000 square feet to support VCC s claim. Criticisms of or complaints against the defendants were elaborated and multiplied. References to documents that Mr. Atkins had reviewed were deleted. Reference to counsel s instruction letter was changed and Mr. Atkins terms of reference were varied. Finch J. held that Mr. Atkins regarded himself as part of the VCC team as a result of his meetings and discussions with counsel. He even met with VCC s other experts and assisted them in revising their reports. Finch J. concluded that he could not rely on anything that Mr. Atkins had said or written: In the end, I find Atkins evidence both written and oral to be of no value whatever. It is so warped by the process of its creation, so one-sided and partisan, as to be completely devoid of any credibility. I have no confidence in anything that Atkins told me, either in writing or orally. Even if his evidence were not
10 3.1.9 contradicted by other credible evidence, I would feel bound to reject it entirely and to decide the case without reference to it. VCC is an important reminder to counsel that if we receive an expert report that analyzes the appropriate facts and comes to a conclusion that we simply cannot live with, our only recourse is to seek another opinion. Counsel should not and cannot suggest that an expert change his or her mind.
EXPERT EVIDENCE PAPER 2.1 Working with an Expert These materials were prepared by Leslie J. Mackoff of Mackoff & Company, Vancouver, BC for the Continuing Legal Education Society of British Columbia, October
Experts in Environmental Litigation Marc McAree Partner, Specialist in Environmental Law Certified by the Law Society of Upper Canada Willms & Shier Environmental Lawyers LLP www.willmsshier.com Law Society
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Toor v. Harding, 2013 BCSC 1202 Amrit Toor and Intech Engineering Ltd. Date: 20130705 Docket: S125365 Registry: Vancouver Plaintiffs Thomas
MODEL DIRECTIONS FOR CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASES (2012) - before Master Roberts and Master Cook Introductory note. These are the Model Directions for use in the first Case Management Conference in clinical
Introduction Effective Use of Experts By: Peter Kryworuk & Tyler Kaczmarczyk Lerners LLP Litigating the Medical Malpractice Claim Ontario Bar Association April 29, 2013 The importance of expert opinion
A Practical Summary of the New Supreme Court Civil Rules for Clark Wilson LLP Insurance Clients by: Jennifer Loeb Clark Wilson LLP tel. 604.891.7766 firstname.lastname@example.org Edited by: Larry Munn Clark Wilson LLP
at The Advocates' Society Presented Expert Witness Academy National C. Murray Andrew LLP Lerners & Solicitors Barristers Box 2335 PO ON N6A 4G4 London 519.640.6313 Phone: LAW OF EXPERT EVIDENCE: THE EVERY
COURT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE FOR EXPERTS Justice Peter Biscoe 1. It is a pleasure to present this paper to the Environmental Institute of Australia and New Zealand s Professional Environmental Practice
Moore v. Getahun: Practical Questions About Expert Witness Interactions Paul J. Pape and Joanna Nairn I. Introduction In January 2015, the Court of Appeal released its highly-anticipated decision in Moore
PERSONAL INJURY CONFERENCE 2015 PAPER 5.1 Opinion Letters in Personal Injury: Perspectives These materials were prepared by A. Reza Rafi, Manager Litigation Policy of ICBC, Vancouver, BC, for the Continuing
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Merlo v. Canada (Attorney General), 2013 BCSC 1136 Date: 20130625 Docket: S122255 Registry: Vancouver Between: Brought under the Class Proceedings Act,
Law Society of Saskatchewan Queen s Bench Rules of Court webinars Part 1: Overview Reché McKeague Director of Research, Law Reform Commission of Saskatchewan January 28, 2013 Table of Contents 1. Introduction...
Writing an Effective Expert Report: The Nuts and Bolts of Complying with Rule 53.03 Adam R. Little Partner Oatley Vigmond 2 Introduction Most lawsuits settle. It is therefore quite infrequent that an expert
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Richard v. British Columbia, 2014 BCSC 1290 William Joseph Richard and W.H.M. Date: 20140714 Docket: S024338 Registry: Vancouver Plaintiffs
1 0 1 0 1 IN THE MANCHESTER COUNTY COURT No.QT0 1 Bridge Street West Manchester M0 DJ 0 th November B e f o r e:- DISTRICT JUDGE MATHARU COMBINED SOLUTIONS UK Ltd. (Trading as Combined Parking Solutions)
Guidance for the instruction of experts in civil claims Introduction 1. The purpose of this guidance is to assist litigants, those instructing experts and experts to understand best practice in complying
2015 Legal Counsel Communications with Expert Witnesses 1 Legal Counsel Communications with Expert Witnesses 2 The role of the expert witness continues to be a hot topic of discussion. Two recent decisions
April, 2011 VOL. 5, ISSUE 2 How To Use The New Expert Witness Rule To Negotiate A Good Deal By Cary N. Schneider Cary N. Schneider is a partner at Beard Winter LLP who specializes in accident benefit and
Advice Note An overview of civil proceedings in England Introduction There is no civil code in England; English civil law comprises of essentially legislation by Parliament and decisions by the courts.
RULE 42 EVIDENCE AND PROCEDURE AT TRIAL Application (1) This rule does not apply to summary trials under Rule 19, except as provided in that rule. Witness to testify orally (2) Subject to any Act, statute
INFORMATION PACKAGE CONCERNING EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE IN BRITISH COLUMBIA EFFECTIVE July 1, 2010 CONTENTS Introduction..iii Major changes in the new Rules...1 Deadlines imposed by Part 11...2 Glossary
MARYAND JUDICIAL CONFERENCE COMMITTEE ON FAMILY LAW CUSTODY SUBCOMMITTEE HON. MARCELLA HOLLAND, CHAIR MARYLAND STANDARDS OF PRACTICE FOR COURT-APPOINTED LAWYERS REPRESENTING CHILDREN IN CUSTODY CASES TEXT
Universal Market Integrity Rules Rules & Policies 10.8 Practice and Procedure The practice and procedure governing hearings pursuant to this Part shall be made by a Policy. POLICY 10.8 - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
PERSONAL INJURY COMPENSATION CLAIM GUIDE PERSONAL INJURY COMPENSATION CLAIM GUIDE This booklet has been produced by D.J. Synnott Solicitors to give our clients an understanding of the personal injury compensation
Date of Release: January 31, 1996 No. B934523 Vancouver Registry IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN: ) ) EMMA ESTEPANIAN, by her Guardian ) Ad Litem, SABINA GHAZARIAN ) REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
PART III Discovery CHAPTER 8 Overview of the Discovery Process Generally, discovery is conducted freely by the parties without court intervention. Disclosure can be obtained through depositions, interrogatories,
RULE 10 FUNDS HELD BY THE CLERK 10.1 General. A Judge of the District Court may order that any monies in actions pending before the Court be invested in any local financial institution for safe keeping.
Expert Witnesses looking back thinking forward The Honourable Madam Justice Jane A. Milanetti Ontario Superior Court of Justice April 2011 (With sincere thanks to Christine A. Jackson, Judicial Law Clerk
Expert Witnesses in the Federal Courts A Discussion Paper of the Federal Courts Rules Committee on Expert Witnesses Background The role of the expert witness is to assist the court through the provision
LOCAL RULES FOR FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI [Renumbered and codified by order of the Supreme Court effective May 18, 2006; amended effective April 23, 2009.] RULE 1. ASSIGNMENT OF CASES
COURT FILE NO.: CV-07-0159-00B1 DATE: October 08, 2009 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: 1013952 ONTARIO INC., operating as the No one attending for Plaintiff Silverado Restaurant and Nightclub
GARETH DAVID CODD (an infant suing by Mr T Griffiths his Uncle and Next Friend) v THOMSONS TOUR OPERATORS LIMITED Before: LORD JUSTICE SWINTON THOMAS And LORD JUSTICE BROOKE  EWCA Civ 5566 Litigation
Factors to Consider When Handling a Long Term Disability Benefits Case Several issues may arise in the course of a lawsuit for long term disability benefits. This paper provides strategic suggestions on
Page 1 of 8 COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Pearlman v. American Commerce Insurance Company, 2009 BCCA 78 David Pearlman American Commerce Insurance Company, and Betsy Morrisette
Jurisdictional Limits The justice courts have exclusive jurisdiction or the authority to hear all civil actions when the amount involved, exclusive of interest, costs and awarded attorney fees when authorized
EXPLANATION OF LEGAL TERMS Affidavit: After the event litigation insurance: Application notice: Bar Council: Barrister: Basic Charges: Before the Event Legal Expenses Insurance: Bill of costs: Bolam test:
M.R. 3140 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Order entered February 16, 2011. (Deleted material is struck through and new material is underscored.) Effective immediately, Supreme Court Rules
14 TH ANNUAL CURRENT ISSUES IN EMPLOYMENT LAW May 5, 2016 WHEN ARE WORKPLACE INVESTIGATIONS PROTECTED BY PRIVILEGE CHALLENGING CLAIMS OF PRIVILEGE WORKPLACE INVESTIGATION REPORTS Nancy Shapiro, Partner
INQUIRY REPORT File #s 10-021AR, 10-022AR, 10-025AR and 10-026AR Michael McEvoy Acting Information and Privacy Commissioner Public Body: Date: May 22, 2012 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES
BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS CIVIL APPEAL NO.10 OF 2002 BETWEEN: IN THE COURT OF APPEAL SPARKASSE BREGENZ BANK AG and In The Matter of ASSOCIATED CAPITAL CORPORATION Appellant Respondent Before: His Lordship,
Responses submitted by: Name: Roddy Bourke Law Firm/Company: McCann FitzGerald Location: Dublin, Ireland 1. Would your jurisdiction be described as a common law or civil code jurisdiction? The Republic
Trials in Supreme Court The final stage in an action (a proceeding started with a notice of civil claim) is the trial. The trial is your opportunity to go before a judge and possibly a jury, and tell your
WORKERS COMPENSATION REPORTER Decision of the Appeal Division Number: 93-1185 Date: August 19, 1993 Panel: Thomas Kemsley, Connie Munro, P. Michael O Brien Subject: Medical Malpractice Action (No. 2) Introduction
Introduction Page to the Appellant s PDF Factum: Note: When you bind your factum, all pages (except for the cover and index) starting with your chronology, should always be on the left-hand side. The righthand
The Process of a Typical Commercial Case Canada (Québec) Litigation Guide IBA Litigation Committee Christopher Richter email@example.com Eric Bédard firstname.lastname@example.org Woods LLP 2000 McGill College
What to Expect In Your Lawsuit A lawsuit is a marathon not a sprint. Stewart R. Albertson. There is a saying that the wheels of justice move slowly. That is as true today as when it was initially stated.
This article originally appeared in The Colorado Lawyer, Vol. 25, No. 26, June 1996. by Jeffrey R. Pilkington TORT AND INSURANCE LAW REPORTER Informal Discovery Interviews Between Defense Attorneys and
Law Office Searches: A Primer 1 by Ian R. Smith Fenton, Smith Barristers Toronto, Ontario Introduction This paper is intended for the lawyer who finds him- or herself in the following unpleasant situation:
Medical Litigation in 2012 Jacob Tse Partner Mayer Brown JSM 8 May 2012 Medical Litigation All kinds of litigation relating to medico-legal matters Legal action for medical negligence 23989412 2 Time limit
Rule 60A - Child and Adult Protection Scope of Rule 60A 60A.01(1) This Rule is divided into four parts and it provides procedure for each of the following: (c) (d) protection of a child, and other purposes,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Capilano University Faculty Association v. Capilano University, 2014 BCSC 712 Date: 20140428 Docket: S138692 Registry: Vancouver Between: Capilano University
CIVIL LITIGATION BASICS FOR LEGAL SUPPORT STAFF 2009 UPDATE PAPER 3.1 Solicitor and Client Privilege in Civil Litigation Cases These materials were prepared by Robert C. Brun, QC, of Harris & Brun, Vancouver,
COMBUSTION ENGINEERING 524(g) ASBESTOS PI TRUST ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR) PROCEDURES Pursuant to Section 5.10 of the Combustion Engineering 524(g) Asbestos PI Trust Distribution Procedures (
JUSTICE GERALD E. LOEHR, J.S.C. Rockland County Supreme Court 1 South Main Street New City, New York 10956 Courtroom 1 Tel: (845) 483-8343 Fax: (845) 708-7236 Staff Bruce J. Pearl, Principal Law Secretary
NEW YORK STATE SUPREME COURT APPELLATE DIVISION, FOURTH DEPARTMENT HONORABLE HENRY J. SCUDDER PRESIDING JUSTICE GUIDELINES FOR ATTORNEYS FOR CHILDREN IN THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT PREFACE The Departmental Advisory
2.1 DOCUMENT PRODUCTION DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT IN COMMERCIAL CASES These materials were prepared by Paul Bennett of Hordo & Bennett, Vancouver, B.C. for Continuing Legal Education, November 2002. Paul Bennett
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA. CASE NO.: 16- DIVISION: CV- vs. Plaintiff, Defendant. ORDER SETTING CASE FOR JURY TRIAL AND PRETRIAL CONFERENCE AND REQUIRING
S u m m a ry Judgment and S u m m a ry Trials in Supreme Court This guidebook provides general information about civil, non-family claims in the Supreme Court of B.C. It does not explain the law. Court
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2002-KA-01124-COA JIMMY FORD APPELLANT v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE DATE OF TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT: 5/10/2002 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. MARCUS D. GORDON
Your Voice in Criminal Court a guide to court orientation for adult witnesses INFORMATION + RESOURCES FOR VICTIM SERVICE WORKERS introduction Victim Service Workers have an important role to play in the
2013 IL App (1st) 120898-U FOURTH DIVISION March 28, 2013 No. 1-12-0898 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
You are not alone. It was not your fault. You have courage. You have choices. You have power. We re here to help. A Guide for Childhood Sexual Abuse Survivors Breaking the silence. Raising Awareness. Fighting
Queen s Bench Forms SCHEDULE OF FORMS 3 Schedule of Forms FORMS FOR PART 1 [Foundational Rules] Form R Nil rule No. Form No. Source FORMS FOR PART 2 [Parties to Litigation] Form R rule No. Form No. Source
Colorado s Civil Access Pilot Project and the Changing Landscape of Business Litigation On January 1, 2012, new rules approved by the Colorado Supreme Court entitled the Civil Access Pilot Project ( CAPP
RULE 63 DIVORCE AND FAMILY LAW Definitions (1) In this rule, Application claim for relief includes a child support order, a spousal support order, a custody order, a property order, and corollary relief
Question 5 Attorney mailed a professional announcement to several local physicians, listing his name and address and his area of law practice as personal injury. Doctor received Attorney s announcement
Executive summary and overview of the national report for Denmark Section I Summary of findings There is no special legislation concerning damages for breach of EC or national competition law in Denmark,
VICTIMS OF CRIME If the people who make the decisions are the people who will also bear the consequences of those decisions, perhaps better decisions will result. Introduction - John Abrams The Attorney
Warning: you must comply with the terms imposed upon you by this order otherwise your case is liable to be struck out or some other sanction imposed. If you cannot comply you are expected to make formal
Strata Corporations and the new Limitation Act By Shawn M. Smith Cleveland Doan LLP The application of limitation periods has generally not been given much consideration in the strata community. That is
CANADA James SULLIVAN Blake, Cassel & Graydon LLP 595 Burrard Street P.O. Box 49314 Suite 2600, Three Bentall Centre Vancouver (C.-B.) V7X 1L3 CANADA Phone: 604-631-3300 Fax: 604-631-3309 Email: email@example.com
VI. COURT COSTS OF INDIGENT PERSONS FUND G.L. c. 261, 27A G Assigned Counsel Manual Table of Contents CPCS Home Page I. INTRODUCTION A. General Guidelines for Obtaining Funds for Defense Costs B. Expert
INFORMAL CUSTODY TRIAL: A Child-Focused Alternative Hon. Benjamin R. Simpson Judge of the Magistrate s Division, Kootenai County Idaho law requires the determination of child custody based upon the best
Rules for Bankruptcy Cases, B.E. 2542 (1999) Translation By virtue of Section 19 of the Act for the Establishment of and Procedure for Bankruptcy Court B.E. 2542 (1999) the Chief Justice of the Central
Anatomy of a Medical Malpractice Case You have an important story to tell Let our voice tell your story with power, clarity and effectiveness Our Litigation Team Why choose our team? We provide more than
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA No. L021060 Vancouver Registry Between: And: DOROTHY YOUNG SHELL CANADA LIMITED Brought under the Class Proceedings Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 50 Plaintiff Defendant
Costs in the Supreme Court This guidebook provides an overview of the procedure for assessing costs in a Supreme Court action. Costs are usually awarded to the party who is successful at trial. They are
insurance specialists Damming Evidence: Judges Empowered to Restrict the Flow of Expert Evidence July 2012 Wotton + Kearney Insurance Lawyers Sydney Level 5, Aurora Place, 88 Phillip Street, Sydney Telephone
SECOND DIVISION May 31, 2011 No. 1-10-0602 Notice: This order was filed under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under
Courts & Our Legal System 2012 (Version 1.0) This booklet has been prepared, published and distributed by the Public Legal Education Association of Saskatchewan (PLEA). The purpose of PLEA and this booklet
COMMERCIAL LEASING: ESSENTIAL ISSUES PAPER 7.1 Commercial Leases Options to Renew These materials were prepared by Richard J. Olson of McKechnie & Company, Catherine Gibson of Davis LLP, and Anthony J.
CODE OF PRACTICE FOR THE CONDUCT OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS BY THE PROSECUTION AND THE DEFENCE A. INTRODUCTION 1. This document lays down the Code of Practice ( Code ) for the conduct of criminal proceedings