Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 27 JANUARY 2015

Expert Evidence And The Judge As Gatekeeper

Miller Thomson
Miller Thomson
Contributor

Miller Thomson

Miller Thomson LLP ("Miller Thomson") is a national business law firm with approximately 500...

View firm profile
Explore more from Miller Thomson

For expert evidence to be admissible, it must be: (a) relevant; (b) necessary to assist the trier of fact; (c) it must not be subject to any exclusionary rules; and (d) the expert must be properly qualified (R. v. Mohan).

CanadaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

For expert evidence to be admissible, it must be: (a) relevant; (b) necessary to assist the trier of fact; (c) it must not be subject to any exclusionary rules; and (d) the expert must be properly qualified (R. v. Mohan).

Earlier this month, in Meady v. Greyhound Canada Transportation Corp.,  the Ontario Court of Appeal examined a trial judge's decision to exclude expert evidence for failing to meet the second requirement of necessity. The Court of Appeal ultimately upheld the trial judge's decision and noted in its reasons that there has been a growing recognition of the responsibility of the trial judge to exercise a more robust "gatekeeper" role in the admission of expert evidence.

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