Reasons for judgment were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, excluding an expert report for failing to disclose a list of documents reviewed.
In today’s case (Lawrence v. Parr) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2010 collision and sued for damages. The Plaintiff alleged that the collision caused some hearing loss. Prior to trial the Defendant served a report from an otolaryngologist which opined that the hearing loss was not from the collision. The report was criticized for a number of reasons including being served beyond the timelines required under the Rules of Court. The report as ultimately excluded from evidence with Mr. Justice Tindale noting that the expert’s failure to list documents reviewed and relied on was a fatal error. In excluding the report the Court provided the following reasons:
 Rule 11-6 (1) states a number of mandatory requirements of an expert report. Dr. David’s report did not contain the certification required under Rule 11-2 (2) though that was remedied at a later date. It does not contain the instructions provided to Dr. David. His report is not clear as to the nature of the opinion being sought and the issues in the proceeding to which the opinion relates. But most importantly it does contain a description of the factual assumptions on which his opinion is based. There is not a comprehensive list of the documents that he relied on. Where he does discuss a document that he relied on he either makes vague, inaccurate or misleading references to that document.
 I am mindful of Rule 11-7 (6) however. The admission of this report will cause prejudice to the plaintiff because despite a very lengthy cross-examination it is not clear what the purpose of Dr. David’s report was and what his factual assumptions were.
 In my view, for all the above noted reasons Dr. David’s report and evidence at the video deposition are inadmissible.