Defence Expert Evidence Rejected After Testimony With “Considerable Controversy”
Reasons for judgement were published today by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, rejecting the opinion evidence of a defence hired orthopaedic surgery on the grounds that the opinions were prohibited advocacy.
In today’s case (Dhugga v. Poirier) the Plaintiff was involved in 2 collisions that the Defendants conceded liability for. The collisions resulted in chronic injuries. In the course of the litigation the Defendants retained an orthopaedic surgeon who provided evidence minimizing the connection between the plaintiff’s symptoms and the collisions. In rejecting this evidence as advocacy in the guise of opinion Mr. Justice Jenkins provided the following critical comments: