Informative reasons for judgement were published last week by the BC Court of Appeal discussing the scope of what is permissible when a treating physician is called both as an expert witness and a lay witness (witness of fact).
In the recent case (Ford v. Lin) the Plaintiff was injured in a vehicle collision and sued for damages. Following trial the Plaintiff appealed arguing treating physicians were unduly restricted by the trial judge when testifying. The BC Court of Appeal found that no error occurred. In doing so the Court provided helpful discussion on two points. First the scope of permissible examination in chief from a party’s own expert under the current BC Supreme Court Rules. Second the scope of permissible lay evidence that can be called from the same expert.
On the first point the Court noted as follows: