Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 20 AUGUST 2019

What To Consider When Choosing An Expert: Maxrelco Inc. v. Lumipro Inc.

McCague Borlack LLP
Explore more from McCague Borlack LLP

The decision provided much-needed clarity on the admissibility of opinion evidence by non-litigation experts

CanadaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Martin Smith
Martin Smith
Author LinkedIn connections

Introduction

In its seminal decision of Westerhof v Gee Estate,1 the Court of Appeal for Ontario provided the general framework for the admissibility of expert evidence in Ontario. Specifically, it clarified the role of participant experts at trial and confirmed that compliance with Rule 53.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure was not required for their evidence to be admissible, as opposed to the evidence of litigation experts. As the Court indicated, participant experts are witnesses, albeit ones with special skill, knowledge, training or expertise, who are not engaged by a party to form their opinions, and who do not form their opinions for the purpose of the litigation. Instead, they testify to opinions formed during their involvement in the event at issue.2

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.

Register for freeORLog in

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

The Coldcard Exploit: Why Victims May Have Two Routes To Recovery

A five-year-old firmware defect in Coldcard hardware wallets has enabled attackers to systematically drain an estimated $116 million in Bitcoin from over 5,200 victims since July 2026. This unprecedented exploit raises critical questions about manufacturer liability and creates two distinct legal pathways for recovery: blockchain tracing against the perpetrators and potential litigation against Canadian manufacturer Coinkite for product defects that undermined the fundamental security promise of devices mar
CanadaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
WeirFoulds LLP
WeirFoulds LLP
Article

Plaintiffs Awarded A Total Of $800,000 In Damages For Defamation (Murdy v. Barrette)

A Canadian court awarded $800,000 in damages to a couple defamed by serious false allegations of sexual assault and criminal misconduct spread through social media. The case examines how factors like the severity of accusations, use of social media platforms, and a defendant's failure to mount a defense can dramatically escalate defamation damages beyond typical awards.
CanadaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Gardiner Roberts LLP
Gardiner Roberts LLP
Article

Ontario’s New AI Rules: What Lawyers And Expert Witnesses Need To Know

Ontario's Rules of Civil Procedure now include strict amendments requiring lawyers and expert witnesses to certify the authenticity of every citation and authority used in court materials. These new anti-hallucination provisions impose significant penalties for presenting AI-generated fabricated authorities, fundamentally shifting accountability for artificial intelligence use in litigation.
CanadaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Soloway Wright
Soloway Wright
Article

Not Beyond Reproach: Alberta Court Confirms Jurisdiction Over Alberta Energy Regulator

The Alberta Court of King's Bench has confirmed its jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief against the Alberta Energy Regulator despite a broadly worded statutory privative clause. This landmark decision, arising from Sumerian Oil & Gas's application to stay a suspension order affecting approximately 900 wells, represents one of the first considerations of the Supreme Court of Canada's recent Democracy Watch ruling and may significantly impact future disputes involving AER orders.
CanadaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
MLT Aikins LLP
MLT Aikins LLP
Article

Copyright Claims on Intellectual Work Property: Employee vs Employer

When a senior software developer secretly creates competing software on his own time, who owns the copyright? The Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in Nexus Solutions Inc. v. Krougly clarifies the boundaries of employer ownership over employee-created work, establishing that broad job descriptions alone cannot secure intellectual property rights without clear contractual terms or direct involvement in the creation process.
CanadaIntellectual Property
McCague Borlack LLP
McCague Borlack LLP