Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 07 NOVEMBER 2017

Bruff-Murphy v Gunawardena

The trial judge was held to have erred in allowing an expert witness, who the judge had reservations about, to testify when said expert was clearly not independent.

CanadaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

IV. PRACTICE ISSUES

B. The trial judge was held to have erred in allowing an expert witness, who the judge had reservations about, to testify when said expert was clearly not independent. Judges have a role as gatekeeper to ensure expert witnesses are worthy of being experts by demonstrating independence and an ability to provide evidence that is fair, objective and non-partisan.

Bruff-Murphy v Gunawardena, 2017 ONCA 502, per Lauwers, Hourigan and Benotto, JJ.A. [4245]

I. FACTS AND ISSUES

The Appellant (Plaintiff) was rear ended by the Respondent (Defendant) and alleged that she suffered multiple soft tissue injuries to her neck, lower back and right shoulder. The Appellant also alleged that the accident left her with a chronic pain condition, anxiety, and depression. Liability was admitted by the Respondent.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from