«The risks associated with
calling the expert opinion evidence of a «hired gun» - that is to say, an expert whose opinions are not independent and impartial but are easily adapted to the requirements of the party that calls him or her - are obvious.
Not exact matches
He is also
called upon to provide
expert evidence opinions in real estate litigation matters.
This case is a great reminder of the need to comply with Rule 40 - A if you are advancing an ICBC injury claim in Supreme Court and wish to
call expert evidence to give the court an
opinion about injuries, causation, future treatment, and prognosis.
[12] In any event, the proposed
evidence is also truly responsive as a rebuttal to the
opinion of another
expert witness
called by the CN defendants, Dr. Baker, whose report entered at Tab 1 of Exhibit 61 states:
In today's case (MacEachern v. Rennie) the Defendants
called a physician to give
expert opinion evidence.
Leading case describing judge's task in deciding whether to admit so -
called expert opinion into
evidence based on scientific validity and applicability to the case; whether the science has been tested and subject to peer review and publication; and what the rate of error is.
Of course the next obvious question is why didn't the plaintiff lawyers
call the regulatory College (CPO) to confirm that this «opposing
expert» was in fact properly qualified to proffer neuropsychological
opinion evidence for the defence in brain injury cases?
These defendants questioned the validity of the so
called expert reports, brought as
evidence against them, mainly on the basis that they deemed these
experts insufficiently qualified to make judgements on the matter, and stated that their
opinions were not properly explained.