The New Rules of Court and the Prohibition of Expert Advocacy
While expert ‘advocacy‘ has always been prohibited, Rule 11-2 of the BC Supreme Court Civil Rules expressly imposes a duty on expert witnesses “to assist the court” and “not to be an advocate for any party“. Experts need to specifically acknowledge that they are aware of this duty, author reports in compliance with this duty and testify in conformance with this duty.
Despite this expert advocacy still exists as was demonstrated in reasons for judgement released this week in the BC Supreme Court.
In this week’s case (Jampolsky v. Shattler) the Plaintiff was involved in 4 seperate collisions. He sued for damages with his most serious allegation being a Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI). Ultimately the TBI claim was dismissed with Mr. Justice Harvey finding that the Plaintiff’s chronic complaints were more plausibly explained by factors other than brain trauma. Prior to doing so, however, the Court made the following critical findings of the expert retained by ICBC in the course of defending the claims:
 Dr. Rees is a neurologist. Since approximately 2004 his practice has been largely comprised of examining persons with suspected brain injuries on behalf of defendants, principally ICBC.
 In that period Dr. Rees had not examined a litigant whom he found to have suffered an MTBI where the symptoms lasted beyond two years. He opined that the plaintiff had not sustained an MTBI in the first accident or any of those which followed in August 1999…
 Dr. Rees initially testified that a Tesla 1.5 MRI could provide imaging of an area as small as 100 neurons in the human brain. I am satisfied that Dr. Rees was in error in this regard. Although counsel suggested, and Dr. Rees ultimately adopted, 126,000,000 as being the smallest grouping of neurons visible on the Tesla 1.5, counsel subsequently advised the Court of his own mathematical error resulting in agreement that the actual number was 126,000. While the difference between these numbers is significant, it still appears that Dr. Rees was outside his area of expertise and was “guessing” at the degree of resolution.
 Dr. Rees was also reluctant to acknowledge that brain trauma could occur without contact between the head and some other source. Although he acknowledged that an acceleration/deceleration injury could result in brain trauma, he confined such instances to situations where there as a concussive blast, such as that which was experienced by troops in Afghanistan when an I.E.D. exploded. He was resistant to the notion that an acceleration/deceleration injury of the type commonly seen in motor vehicles accidents could cause an MTBI
 A major difference in the opinion of Dr. Rees and Dr. Ancill is whether or not the plaintiff experienced a “credible event” which would account for brain trauma. During vigorous cross examination Dr. Rees acknowledged that he could not offer an opinion on the tensile strength of brain matter, and that an acceleration/deceleration impact could damage muscle tissue which he acknowledged is denser than brain matter.
 Dr. Janke, the other defence expert, and Dr. Ancill were both of the opinion that a force far less than that described by Dr. Rees could result in an MTBI.
 Dr. Rees accepted, without question, the veracity of the plaintiff when it came to maters related by the plaintiff which tended to negate or be neutral as to the existence of a brain injury, but questioned, without proper foundation, the plaintiff’s truthfulness if his answer to a particular question came into conflict with Dr. Rees’ rigidly held views as to the length of time the sequalae from MTBI could persist and the extent to which an MTBI could interfere with what he called core skills. He referred to the plaintiff’s response to queries regarding whether he had undergone any sleep studies for his reported apnea as “disingenuous.”…
 I place little or no reliance on the opinion of Dr. Rees. He assumed, for much of his testimony, the role of advocate as opposed to that of a disinterested and detached expert.
As recently discussed, the UK Supreme Court stripped expert witnesses of immunity exposing them to the threat of lawsuits for negligent services. The law in BC currently does not permit this making judicial criticism the strongest remedy for experts who ignore the duties set out in the Rules of Court,