Canada: Experts In The East: Whether Moore v Getahun Might Affect Disclosure Of Draft Expert Reports In Nova Scotia

Introduction

The Ontario Court of Appeal's recent decision in Moore v Getahun, 2015 ONCA 55 did two key things: First, it confirmed that consultation between counsel and experts about draft reports is appropriate – leading many practitioners to breathe a sigh of relief.1 Second, Moore considered whether and when consultations between counsel and experts must be produced,2 taking a relatively restrictive approach to disclosure. It is this aspect of Moore, in particular, that may clash with the existing case law and the practice of more liberal disclosure in Nova Scotia.

Moore holds that consultation between lawyers and experts is appropriate

The expert in Moore was a retired orthopedic surgeon, who opined that the appellant/defendant surgeon had properly used a full circumferential cast to treat the respondent/plaintiff's broken wrist and had therefore not breached the standard of care.3 It came up on cross-examination that the expert had spoken with counsel before finalizing his report, in a 90-minute conference call.4 The expert made no substantive changes in the report after conversing with counsel.5

Nevertheless, the trial judge was very critical of this consultation, and her comments caused no shortage of concern amongst civil litigators across Canada.6

The Court of Appeal's unanimous decision should alleviate this concern. The trial judge's criticism was misguided and wrong, according to Justice Sharpe. He remarked:

[62] I agree with the submissions of the appellant and the interveners that it would be bad policy to disturb the well-established practice of counsel meeting with expert witnesses to review draft reports. Just as lawyers and judges need the input of experts, so too do expert witnesses need the assistance of lawyers in framing their reports in a way that is comprehensible and responsive to the pertinent legal issues in a case.

In Ontario, communications about drafts are presumptively privileged and not subject to disclosure

The next issue for the Court in Moore was "the extent to which consultations between counsel and expert witnesses need to be documented and disclosed to an opposing party."7 Rule 53.01(2.1) of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure requires the expert to set out in her report the "instructions provided to the expert in relation to the proceeding"8 and other "foundational information" for the opinion.9

But communications between counsel and experts during the drafting process can go beyond these areas. Assuming the expert is submitting a report and testifying at trial,10 when do draft reports and communications with counsel have to be disclosed to the other side?

The answer is: Rarely. Consultations about draft reports are presumptively privileged, at least in Ontario.

As Justice Sharpe explained: "The starting point for analysis is that such consultations attract the protection of litigation privilege."11 These consultations fall within the "zone of privacy" that the Supreme Court discussed in Blank v Canada (Minister of Justice), 2006 SCC 39, [2006] 2 SCR 319:

[69] In Blank, the court noted, at para. 34, that litigation privilege creates "a 'zone of privacy' in relation to pending or apprehended litigation." The careful and thorough preparation of a case for trial requires an umbrella of protection that allows counsel to work with third parties such as experts while they make notes, test hypotheses and write and edit draft reports.

The upshot is that draft notes and reports, and records of communications with counsel about those drafts, are prima facie protected from disclosure.12 Justice Sharpe explained this conclusion, and the policy reasons behind it:

[70] Pursuant to rule 31.06(3), the draft reports of experts the party does not intend to call are privileged and need not be disclosed. Under the protection of litigation privilege, the same holds for the draft reports, notes and records of any consultations between experts and counsel, even where the party intends to call the expert as a witness.

[71] Making preparatory discussions and drafts subject to automatic disclosure would, in my view, be contrary to existing doctrine and would inhibit careful preparation. Such a rule would discourage the participants from reducing preliminary or tentative views to writing, a necessary step in the development of a sound and thorough opinion. Compelling production of all drafts, good and bad, would discourage parties from engaging experts to provide careful and dispassionate opinions and would instead encourage partisan and unbalanced reports. Allowing an open-ended inquiry into the differences between a final report and an earlier draft would unduly interfere with the orderly preparation of a party's case and would run the risk of needlessly prolonging proceedings. [Emphasis added.]

On the facts of Moore, it was an error for the trial judge to order production of the expert's notes and drafts, and wrong for her to suggest "that all changes in the reports of expert witnesses should be routinely documented and disclosed."13

There are two qualifications to the scope of litigation privilege in this context. First, the Ontario Rules already permit discovery of "the findings, opinions and conclusions of an expert engaged by or on behalf of the party being examined'"14 and require disclosure of "'the foundational information' for the opinion" through inclusion in the report itself.15

Second, the Court may order expert-lawyer communications to be disclosed if there is reasonable suspicion of improper interference with the expert's work:

Where the party seeking production of draft reports or notes of discussions between counsel and an expert can show reasonable grounds to suspect that counsel communicated with an expert witness in a manner likely to interfere with the expert witness's duties of independence and objectivity, the court can order disclosure of such discussions.16

The Court had earlier pointed out the general safeguards in place for ensuring an expert's independence: The ethical obligations on all counsel involved; the expert's own professional obligations; and the protections of the adversarial process itself, notably cross-examination.17

Moore seems to conflict with the practice in Nova Scotia

The Court in Moore took an expansive view of the scope of litigation privilege when it comes to draft expert reports, and communications with counsel about those drafts. This of course limits the party's disclosure obligations. However, in Nova Scotia, a more liberal disclosure regime has governed, even after the 2009 Nova Scotia Civil Procedure Rules imposed a tighter "trial relevance" standard in place of the former "semblance of relevancy" test.18

Another change in the 2009 Rules was to remove discovery of experts.19 Instead, Rule 55.11(3) lets the opposing side question the expert in writing on non-privileged information about:

  1. the expert's qualifications;
  2. a factual assumption made by the expert;
  3. the basis for an opinion expressed in the expert's report.

Rule 55 also requires that expert reports be disclosed ahead of the hearing or trial.

Flinn v McFarland, 2002 NSSC 272 is Nova Scotia's leading case on disclosure of draft expert reports.20 The Court in Flinn, clearly concerned about expert independence, held that earlier drafts had to be disclosed if they were developed in consultation with counsel:

[9] At issue is the independence of the expert's report. The expert apparently prepared a draft report which he forwarded to counsel for the plaintiff for comments and upon receipt of comments prepared a final report which has been disclosed to the defendants. Clearly, the extent to which the final report of the expert may be the result of counsel's comments, is both relevant and entitled to be examined by counsel for the defendants. This, however, does not extend to any earlier drafts the expert may have prepared which he, himself, may have amended, altered or revised in the course of considering the issues and his opinions. It is the fact the expert submitted a draft report to counsel for the plaintiff and then prepared a final report, that may or may not have been revised in accordance with suggestions by counsel for the plaintiff, that the defendants are entitled to pursue in examining the expert as to his opinions and the basis on which he reached his opinions, including to the extent the opinions offered are his or may be the consequence of suggestions by plaintiff's counsel.

Related communications with counsel would have to be disclosed too:

[17] Whatever information and materials were provided to the expert must be disclosed. If this involves discussions with the party, counsel for a party or with a third party, it is, may be, or perhaps should have been, part of the informational basis used by the expert in reaching his conclusion, and must be disclosed. The comments by counsel, on the draft report of the accident re-constructionist, must be disclosed to the defendants.

Flinn was decided several years before Blank, but Justice MacAdam still recognized that some material related to lawyer-expert communication would be privileged, as forming part of "the solicitor's brief" (a cross between solicitor-client privilege and litigation privilege).21 However, Justice MacAdam limited the scope of the privilege to discussions of "tactics and strategy" as long as they "only relate to the views of the plaintiff's expert on any report or opinion of defendant's expert..."22 (e.g. in preparation for cross-examining the other side's expert).

Interestingly, the Court in Flinn relied quite heavily on the Ontario case of Browne (Litigation Guardian of) v Lavery, 2002 CanLII 49411 (Ont Sup Ct J),23 where Justice Ferguson referred to the "narrowing of litigation privilege" and a "broader approach" to disclosure of materials related to the expert report.24 Justice Ferguson stated in Browne:

[66] It is my tentative view that our system of civil litigation would function more fairly and effectively if parties were required to produce all communications which take place between counsel and an expert before the completion of a report of an expert whose opinion is going to be used at trial.

Justice Ferguson made a point of saying that this issue "crie[d] out for appellate review."25

But when appellate review came in the form of Moore, the Court of Appeal went the opposite way. Justice Sharpe acknowledged that "the wisdom of extending litigation privilege to the preparation of expert reports has been questioned by some judges," including Justice Ferguson in Browne.26 However, as Justice Sharpe put it, "the law currently imposes no routine obligation to produce draft reports."27

This sets up a conflict with the Nova Scotia case law, where the "general rule" requires "that early drafts of an expert's report that counsel has commented on will be subject to production."28

In light of Moore, there may be room to argue that litigation privilege should be expanded to cover these draft expert reports and related records, even where they were written or updated following consultation with counsel. But as in Ontario, a revamped approach may not arrive without appellate direction.

Unless and until that happens, Nova Scotia lawyers should remain cautious about their own practices in discussing drafts with experts. Whether or not disclosure rules shift in this province after Moore, experts remain independent and their role is to assist the court – a common theme of Nova Scotia's Rule 55.

The Advocates' Society's Principles Governing Communications with Testifying Experts29 may also provide guidance in the meantime – Principle 9 in particular:

In appropriate cases, an advocate should consider an agreement with opposing counsel related to the non-disclosure of draft expert reports and communications with experts.

The Supreme Court of Canada might have something to say about this

The Supreme Court of Canada has a decision about expert independence on reserve in an appeal from Nova Scotia, White Burgess Langille Inman, carrying on business as WBLI Chartered Accountants v Abbott and Haliburton Company Limited.30 This case relates to the admissibility of expert evidence and not the production of draft reports. However, the Court's comments may provide insight on the latter issue as well – particularly for provinces without their own version of Moore.31

Footnotes

[1] Moore at paras 4, 7

[2] Moore at e.g. para 67.

[3] Moore at para 26.

[4] Moore at para 27.

[5] Moore at para 50.

[6] Moore at paras 27-28, 42-52.

[7] Moore at para 67.

[8] Moore at para 39.

[9] Moore at para 75.

[10] Ontario's Rule 31.06(3)(b) provides that "the draft reports of experts the party does not intend to call are privileged and need not be disclosed" (see Moore at para 70).

[11] Moore at para 68.

[12] Moore at paras 70, 78.

[13] Moore at para 78.

[14] Moore at para 74.

[15] Moore at para 75.

[16] Moore at para 77.

[17] Moore at paras 56-61.

[18] See e.g. Laushway v Messervey, 2014 NSCA 7 at paras 47-49.

[19] See generally DA Rollie Thompson, ed, Overview to the Nova Scotia Civil Procedure Rules, 2d ed, loose-leaf (Markham, Ont: LexisNexis Canada 2008) at section 4(b).

[20] As described in South West Shore Development Authority v Ocean Produce International Ltd, 2008 NSSC 240 at para 15. The case continues to be cited under the 2009 Rules as well.

[21] Blank, supra at para 49.

[22] Flinn at paras 29, 33. See also para 35; Skinner v Dalrymple, 2011 NSSC 461 at para 17.

[23] Flinn at paras 10-15, 23

[24] Browne at paras 49-52.

[25] Browne at para 71.

[26] Moore at para 72.

[27] Moore at para 72; emphasis added.

[28] Skinner v Dalrymple, 2011 NSSC 461 at para 8, citing Flinn; emphasis added.

[29] June 2014, online: (http://www.advocates.ca/assets/files/pdf/The_Advocates_Society-Principles_Governing_Communications_with_Testifying_Experts_3_sep18.pdf) and also attached as an Appendix to Moore, where Justice Sharpe said that the guide "provides a thorough and thoughtful statement of the professional standards pertaining to the preparation of expert witnesses" (at para 57).

[30] SCC Case No 35492, an appeal from 2013 NSCA 66.

[31] According to the docket, the SCC has been provided with a copy of Moore: http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/case-dossier/info/dock-regi-eng.aspx?cas=35492.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Blaney McMurtry LLP
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Blaney McMurtry LLP
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions