![]() The second part of the inquiry involves a more complicated cost-benefit analysis. Justice Sopinka explains in his reasons in R. The “relevance” criterion is a two part inquiry. The first part of the inquiry is simple: Is the subject matter of the evidence logically relevant to the matters at issue? This inquiry can be answered by the application of common sense. (d) It must come from a properly qualified expert. (c) It must not offend and any exclusionary rule and (b) It must be necessary to assist the trier of fact Mohan the Supreme Court introduced a principled approach to the admissibility of expert evidence. Justice Sopinka indicated that for expert evidence to be admitted, the following criteria must be met:4 Recent changes to the Rules of Civil Procedure and recent case law signals changing attitudes towards the use of expert evidence in civil proceedings. Expert evidence is being more closely scrutinized before it is admitted and relied upon. Expert evidence was commonly admitted with frailties in the evidence (or the expert) going to weight rather than admissibility. Trial judges have always been the gatekeepers when it comes to determining whether or not to admit expert evidence. However, as expert testimony became commonplace in Canadian courtrooms the gatekeepers became more relaxed in their views about its admissibility. ![]() In the 19th century there was considerable scepticism about expert evidence.2 Judges were concerned that juries might abdicate their decision making responsibilities to highly qualified experts. Expert bias was a concern for Judges more than a hundred years ago.3 One of the basic rules of the law of evidence is that witnesses may not give opinion evidence.1 Expert evidence on subject areas beyond the fact-finder’s knowledge and experience is an exception to this exclusionary rule.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |