This article highlights the difficulties involved where one party seeks to exclude expert evidence. The suggestion is that, where a judge acts as ‘gatekeeper’, there may be an imbalance arising from the judge’s lack of technical understanding.

In Nova Scotia (Community Services) v J.M, 2018 NSCA 71 (CanLII), the trial judge ruled evidence from a toxicology expert inadmissible, on the grounds that it was ‘clinical’ evidence rather than ‘forensic’. The decision was reversed on appeal.

Canadian jurisprudence has a framework for admitting expert testimony, as set out in the cases of R v. Mohan and White Burgess Langille Inman v Abbott. However, this article suggests that the multi-stage approach used in those cases may muddy the waters.

For the article: https://canliiconnects.org/en/commentaries/64027