Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Evidence – Expert witnesses – Experts’ report – Whether expert witnesses who are not paid for their participation in proceedings are subject to the expert witness rules under Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in treating opinion evidence of expert witnesses as presumptively admissible – Whether Court of Appeal misapplied R. v. Mohan, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9 – Whether experts can provide opinions beyond their own expertise where such opinions are founded on the opinion of another expert or were formed in the course of carrying out one's own work – Whether expert opinion of two proposed witnesses should have been allowed – Law with respect to correct interpretation of Rules 53.03 and 4.1 of Rules of Civil Procedure.

On April 22, 2004, Mr. Westerhof was injured in a car accident. He claimed serious and permanent impairment to important physical, mental or psychological functions. At trial, he proposed to call evidence from several medical witnesses. The trial judge allowed some of the proposed evidence and excluded some on the basis that it was not compliant with Rule 53.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194. A jury’s award for general damages and past loss of income was less than collateral benefits already received. The trial judge dismissed the action. The Divisional Court dismissed an appeal. The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal and ordered a new trial.