Sentences with phrase «for expert opinion evidence»

The BC Supreme Court Rules have strict requirements for expert opinion evidence.

Not exact matches

Our findings stress the need for frequent re-evaluation of practices and policies based on guideline recommendations, particularly in cases where such recommendations rely primarily on expert opinion or limited clinical evidence,» the authors write.

The cognitive principles of learning are based on reports from (a) the National Academy of Sciences, 1 (b) a practice guide for teachers by the Institute of Education Sciences in the U.S. Department of Education on Organizing Instruction and Study to Improve Student Learning, 2 (c) and a joint initiative between the Association of Psychological Sciences and the American Psychological Association on Lifelong Learning at Work and at Home.3 The recommendations here reflect the wisdom of these reports, which are based on scientific evidence, rather than being consensus opinions of experts.

But even as the evidence that cannabis products could help your pets, experts say it's always important to consult your veterinarian for an opinion.

For the first time, an Environmental Review Tribunal had defined the measures it deems, based on the evidence and expert opinion presented before it, necessary to protect the species at risk.

In an opinion piece run by the Journal on Wednesday, nearly 40 scientists, including acknowledged climate change experts, took on the paper for publishing an article disputing the evidence on global warming.

The other day, for example, Nic Lewis at Climate Dialogue (linked and praised here) pointed out how some of the TCS estimates downweighted the empirical evidence by having priors with non-negligible probability at high values, with no evidentiary support other than expert opinion.

If the only evidence in favor of a non-negligible probability for an ECS to a doubling of CO2 in the range 8C — 10C is «expert opinion», then we'll reply with the quote from Feynman about science v «experts.»

c) Unless the evidence of a lawyer is being tendered as expert testimony on the motion, it is not appropriate for an affidavit to contain legal opinions or argument.

The Certificate of Merit is an opinion from a medical expert / certified physician offering evidence that the physician has reviewed the plaintiff's medical records, and based on the review, believes that there is a strong argument for an act of malpractice committed by the defendant based on the fact that evidence suggests the defendant deviated from the appropriate standard of care.

This makes it very difficult for the personal injury claimant to get opinion evidence into court as «clinical records» are not considered expert reports.

For example, these frequently used evidence - producing types of technology go unchallenged: (1) mobile phone tower location evidence used to locate us - very frequently used because we all carry mobile phones; (2) breathalyzer / intoxilyzer readings; (3) electronic records management systems (records are now the most frequently used kind of evidence); and, (4) the technology that produces the data used to formulate expert opinion evidence.

It is common experience that it is advantageous to read all the available papers so as to gain an overview of the entire case rather than limit that task to the relatively small area that is truly relevant to the expert's own field for the expert evidence in a particular case must be given in relation to the whole case if the opinion is to be of real value to the court when it comes to decide on the issues before it.

George et al. v. Newfoundland and Labrador 2013 NLTD (G) 170 Evidence — Opinion evidence — Expert evidence — General — When expert evidence required The representative plaintiffs commenced this class action on January 5, 2011, for damages in respect of personal injuries as a result of moose - vehicle collisions in Newfoundland and Labrador (the defEvidence — Opinion evidence — Expert evidence — General — When expert evidence required The representative plaintiffs commenced this class action on January 5, 2011, for damages in respect of personal injuries as a result of moose - vehicle collisions in Newfoundland and Labrador (the defevidence — Expert evidence — General — When expert evidence required The representative plaintiffs commenced this class action on January 5, 2011, for damages in respect of personal injuries as a result of moose - vehicle collisions in Newfoundland and Labrador (the defevidence — General — When expert evidence required The representative plaintiffs commenced this class action on January 5, 2011, for damages in respect of personal injuries as a result of moose - vehicle collisions in Newfoundland and Labrador (the defevidence required The representative plaintiffs commenced this class action on January 5, 2011, for damages in respect of personal injuries as a result of moose - vehicle collisions in Newfoundland and Labrador (the defendant).

«Technologically competent» also requires knowledge of the electronic technology that now produces most of the evidence, and very frequently used types of evidence; for example, these kinds of evidence: (1) records are now the most frequently used kind of evidence but most often come from very complex electronic records management systems; (2) mobile phone tracking evidence because we all carry mobile phones; (3) breathalyzer device readings because they are the basis of more than 95 % of impaired driving cases; and, (4) expert opinion evidence that depends upon data produced by electronic systems and devices.

If this is a criterion for understanding «basic procedures» — that might explain why the ligation landscape is littered with so many cases in which unqualified experts were able to proffer unchallenged, unqualified «expert» opinion evidence.

A separate trial for Kenny, according to the then state of the expert medical opinion evidence, a lesser player in the unlawful death of Brian Fudge, was at once viable, reasonable and in the interests of justice.

New Brunswick (Minister of Social Development) v. N.S. et al. 2013 NBCA 8 Evidence — Opinion evidence — Expert evidence — General — Qualifications and declaration that a witness is an expert An application judge dismissed the application by the Minister of Social Development for an order of guardianship of N.S.'s cEvidence — Opinion evidence — Expert evidence — General — Qualifications and declaration that a witness is an expert An application judge dismissed the application by the Minister of Social Development for an order of guardianship of N.S.'s cevidence — Expert evidence — General — Qualifications and declaration that a witness is an expert An application judge dismissed the application by the Minister of Social Development for an order of guardianship of N.S.'s cevidence — General — Qualifications and declaration that a witness is an expert An application judge dismissed the application by the Minister of Social Development for an order of guardianship of N.S.'s children.

The three analogies: (1) whereas a pre-electronic paper record can be symbolized by a piece of paper in a file drawer, an electronic record is like a drop of water in a pool of water, i.e., it is completely dependent upon its ERMS for its existence, accessibility, and «integrity» (as that word is used in the electronic records provisions of the Evidence Acts; e.g. s. 31.2 (1)(a) CEA); (2) if expert opinion evidence were rendered admissible in the way that electronic records are, there would be no evidence presented, nor cross-examination allowed, as to the qualifications of the expert witnesses, i.e., the «qualifications» of an electronic record being the state of records management of the ERMS in which it is stored; (3) going from a horse - powered transportation system to a motor vehicle - based transportation system has required a vast amount of new laws, regulations, and enforcement personnel, including police officers, judges, and lawyers, i.e., stepping up to a new technology requires that it be controlled by new laws and regulations, otherwise it will cause injury, damage, and inEvidence Acts; e.g. s. 31.2 (1)(a) CEA); (2) if expert opinion evidence were rendered admissible in the way that electronic records are, there would be no evidence presented, nor cross-examination allowed, as to the qualifications of the expert witnesses, i.e., the «qualifications» of an electronic record being the state of records management of the ERMS in which it is stored; (3) going from a horse - powered transportation system to a motor vehicle - based transportation system has required a vast amount of new laws, regulations, and enforcement personnel, including police officers, judges, and lawyers, i.e., stepping up to a new technology requires that it be controlled by new laws and regulations, otherwise it will cause injury, damage, and inevidence were rendered admissible in the way that electronic records are, there would be no evidence presented, nor cross-examination allowed, as to the qualifications of the expert witnesses, i.e., the «qualifications» of an electronic record being the state of records management of the ERMS in which it is stored; (3) going from a horse - powered transportation system to a motor vehicle - based transportation system has required a vast amount of new laws, regulations, and enforcement personnel, including police officers, judges, and lawyers, i.e., stepping up to a new technology requires that it be controlled by new laws and regulations, otherwise it will cause injury, damage, and inevidence presented, nor cross-examination allowed, as to the qualifications of the expert witnesses, i.e., the «qualifications» of an electronic record being the state of records management of the ERMS in which it is stored; (3) going from a horse - powered transportation system to a motor vehicle - based transportation system has required a vast amount of new laws, regulations, and enforcement personnel, including police officers, judges, and lawyers, i.e., stepping up to a new technology requires that it be controlled by new laws and regulations, otherwise it will cause injury, damage, and injustice.

If participant experts or non-party experts proffer opinion evidence extending beyond these limits, they must comply with rule 53.03 for that portion of their evidence, Simmons said.

«For expert opinion to be admissible it must be able to provide the court with information which is likely to be outside a judge's or a jury's knowledge and experience, but it must also be evidence which gives the court the help it needs in forming its conclusions.»

Re: lawyers practising in association with non-lawyers: - Absolutely necessary because: (1) technology will be the basis of almost all laws, therefore we will have to practice with other experts in that technology; (2) records management law will be a major area of practice because, records are the most frequently used form of evidence and e-records depend for everything on their e-records management systems (ERMSs), and they must be compliant with the National Standards of Canada for e-records management, which standards require legal opinions, and every significant change to an ERMS requires a legal opinion re ability to produce records able to satisfy laws as to e-discovery, admissibility of evidence, privacy & access to information, electronic commerce, tax laws, and compliance with National Standards of Canada for e-records management; (3) all new technologies require a legal framework, which means more work for lawyers; and, (4) otherwise, other professions and service providers who now provide «legal information,» will begin to provide «legal advice» and other services that only lawyers should be providing.

So I ask — how is it possible that a psychologist — unqualified to proffer expert opinion evidence in brain injury cases — was able to do so over and over and over for several years without challenge to his qualifications?

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?

The factual premise for the expert opinion must be established by evidence otherwise properly admissible in the proceedings or it may be entitled to less weight (or none at all); R. v. Abbey, 1982 CanLII 25 (SCC); R. v. Lavallee, 1990 CanLII 95 (SCC).

Qualified experts rely on accumulated expertise to interpret evidence (within a defined nature and scope) for the purpose of expressing new information in the form of their expert opinions.

Act 2, including: changes to Wisconsin's product liability laws; adding Daubert standards for cases tried in Wisconsin involving expert opinion and evidence; eliminating the controversial «risk contribution» theory created by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in the 2005 Thomas v. Mallett decision; placing caps on punitive damages; and reducing frivolous lawsuits by holding parties liable for costs and fees for filing frivolous claims.

And we can consider the best method for your experts to put forward the expert opinion evidence they've developed for you.

An expert witness offered opinion evidence regarding the vulnerability of female migrant workers, citing, for example, that Pratas had confiscated the sisters» passports, work permits and healthcare documents upon their arrival in Canada.

In partially granting the defendant's motion to bar the testimony, the court provides a nice gloss on the required showings for getting expert opinions into evidence in Federal courts.

The Schedule does not permit the common practice of applicants who obtain expert opinions by non-treating doctors, for the sole purpose of presenting them as evidence in the arbitration.

It is possible that an adversary will argue that computer simulations are a form of scientific evidence offered for a substantive purpose, meaning that it has independent probative value and can be used by an expert as a basis for the expert's opinion.

For example, although the parties would try to introduce experts into IP litigation by submitting written opinions of experts as evidence, there is no expert witness officially adopted by the procedural laws.

There is a strong argument for seeking judges» opinions about an expert's evidence in the event of complaints, and the views of instructing solicitors.

For example, I'd of thought it would be painfully obvious that a psychological «expert» proffering opinion evidence in a chronic pain case who concedes under cross-examination to «a lack of training and competency in the area of chronic pain» ought to be confronted with his concession (chronicled in the form of adverse judicial comment) his next time out (only weeks later in another chronic pain case).

The standard adversarial methods for finding whether witnesses are telling the truth or not have never sat that well with opinion evidence — is an expert who honestly holds an errant opinion telling the truth?

These include: appointment of arbitrators, including the possible introduction of a code of conduct; challenges to arbitrators; third party funding; consolidation; preliminary objections and first session; witnesses; experts and other evidence; discontinuance of a case; awards and dissenting opinions; security for costs and security for stay of enforcement of awards ordered by the ad hoc committee; allocation of costs; annulment; publication of decisions and orders (compared to the current provisions referring to awards); as well as the modernization of the means of communication (apparently with a view to making the procedure «less paper - intensive and more environmentally friendly»).

[30] Justice Sackville noted, at Jango v Northern Territory (No 2)[2004] FCA 1004, para [33], that Federal Court authority supports the view that Section 79 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) does not impose the «basis rule» that exists at common law — the «requirement that for an expert's opinion to be admissible, it must be based on facts stated by the expert and either proved by the expert or assumed by him or her and proved [from another source]».

2) the expert therapist / clinical psychologist whose clients» lives serve as an apparent evidence base for opinion.