Canada: Guiding The Gatekeeper: The SCC Clarifies The Framework For Admitting Expert Evidence


This post is the third in a row about expert evidence.

The first post discussed Moore v Getahun, 2015 ONCA 55, and its conclusion that consultations between counsel and experts about draft reports are appropriate and presumptively privileged.

Next up was Westerhof v Gee Estate, 2015 ONCA 206, which held that certain treating practitioners can provide opinion evidence about a party's medical condition without having to comply with the formalities of a traditional expert report under the Ontario Rules.

Now, we have a landmark judgment about expert evidence from the Supreme Court of Canada on another aspect of expert evidence: Admissibility in the face of challenges to a proposed expert's independence and impartiality.

In White Burgess Langille Inman v Abbott and Haliburton Co, 2015 SCC 23 ["WBLI"], an appeal from Nova Scotia, Justice Cromwell for a unanimous Court confirmed that there is a "threshold admissibility requirement" related to independence and impartiality: The trial or motion judge, as gatekeeper, must be satisfied that the expert will abide by her duty to the court to give independent and impartial evidence that is free of bias (paras 1-2, 10, 34, 45-46).

This duty is not sufficiently safeguarded if all concerns about independence and impartiality are left to be weighed at the end of the proceeding; the gatekeeper must flex some muscle at the beginning of the proceeding to protect it (see e.g. para 45). How much muscle, exactly, will depend on the circumstances.

Safeguarding independence and impartiality

The three cases comprising the 'trilogy' of blog posts—Moore, Westerhof, and now WBLI—address different angles of the law on expert evidence. But they all share the same objective, at least in part: Ensuring experts uphold their duty to the court to give independent and impartial evidence. This duty has been enshrined in the civil procedure rules of many provinces, including in Nova Scotia Civil Procedure Rule 55.04(1), but also exists at common law (paras 29-31).

The raison d'être for this duty is, of course, to prevent miscarriages of justice (para 12).

Justice Cromwell in WBLI defined impartiality and independence, and then set out the "acid test" for admissibility (para 32):

Underlying the various formulations of the duty are three related concepts: impartiality, independence and absence of bias. The expert's opinion must be impartial in the sense that it reflects an objective assessment of the questions at hand. It must be independent in the sense that it is the product of the expert's independent judgment, uninfluenced by who has retained him or her or the outcome of the litigation.  It must be unbiased in the sense that it does not unfairly favour one party's position over another. The acid test is whether the expert's opinion would not change regardless of which party retained him or her [emphasis added].

The impartiality problem arose in WBLI on a motion to strike a proposed expert's affidavit (paras 4-6). This was part of a broader summary judgment motion in a professional negligence action, in which a group of shareholders were suing their company's former auditors. The alleged negligence of the defendant auditors was discovered by a branch of Grant Thornton in Kentville, Nova Scotia; the shareholders' proposed expert was a forensic accounting partner from Grant Thornton in Halifax. The defendants said she could not be impartial because she could have a potential personal financial stake in the outcome of the case, as a partner with the firm. The motion judge agreed and struck the affidavit; a majority of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal overturned that decision.

Ending the debate of admissibility vs weight

Can the trial judge just let the potentially biased expert through the gate at the outset so her evidence can be heard, leaving the trier of fact to decide what to do with it later when weighing the whole of the evidence? No.

According to Justice Cromwell, issues of independence and impartiality have to be considered at both junctures – when considering admissibility of the evidence in the first place, and when considering the ultimate weight to give to the evidence (assuming it was not previously excluded) (para 45).

Justice Cromwell quoted Justice Binnie from the earlier case of R v J-LJ, [2000] 2 SCR 600: "The admissibility of the expert evidence should be scrutinized at the time it is proffered, and not allowed too easy an entry on the basis that all of the frailties could go at the end of the day to weight rather than admissibility" (WBLI at para 45).

By reaching this conclusion, the Court resolved an ongoing debate in the case law.

Clarifying the test

The threshold admissibility requirement had to be shoehorned into the overall framework for admitting expert evidence – which, as we know, is already a tightly controlled exception to the general exclusion of opinion evidence. This is where the Supreme Court meshed its seminal decision in R v Mohan, [1994] 2 SCR 9 with the Ontario Court of Appeal's 2009 decision in R v Abbey, 2009 ONCA 624, which it finally adopted after refusing leave to appeal in 2010 (and mentioning the case in a few other decisions since then).

At several points in his reasons, Justice Cromwell reviewed how the analytical pieces fit together (see especially paras 16-25 and 46-53). What follows is an attempt to compile the pieces into one succinct checklist, with the 'new' parts of the test in italics:

I. Admissibility of expert evidence: Trial judge as gatekeeper

(1)  Stage 1 – Threshold admissibility

  • Application of Mohan factors – Expert evidence must be:

    • Relevant
    • Necessary to assist the trier of fact
    • Otherwise admissible (no other exclusionary rule applies)
    • {Based on reliable underlying science, if opinion "based on novel or contested science or science used for a novel purpose}
    • Given by a properly qualified expert – This is where the *initial* assessment takes place of the expert's ability to comply with the duty to the court to remain independent and impartial:

      • Generally, the expert's oath/affirmation will suffice to show compliance with the duty to the court (although note that this does not rise to the level of a presumption)
      • If there is a challenge to the expert, "the burden is on the party opposing the admission of the evidence to show that there is a realistic concern that the expert's evidence should not be received because the expert is unable and/or unwilling to comply with that duty"
      • Then the party proffering the evidence must prove on a balance of probabilities that the expert is independent and impartial, and otherwise properly qualified
      • If the trial judge concludes the expert is "unable or unwilling" to comply with the duty, the evidence must be excluded at this stage – but this will "likely be quite rare"

(2)  Stage 2 – Cost-benefit analysis

  • Balancing of risks and benefits of admission of expert evidence

    • This balancing can also incorporate "concerns about the expert's independence and impartiality

II. Weight of expert evidence: Trier of fact (judge or jury)

  • The trier of fact can still factor in a potential lack of independence and/or impartiality when weighing the evidence

Note that a motion judge will likely only apply the first step (threshold admissibility), because the cost-benefit analysis at the second step "inevitably involves assigning weight—or at least potential weight—to the evidence" (para 55).

Applying the test

Justice Cromwell set a high bar, stating that "exclusion at the threshold stage of the analysis should occur only in very clear cases in which the proposed expert is unable or unwilling to provide the court with fair, objective and non-partisan evidence" (para 49; emphasis added).

This is not a reasonable apprehension of bias-type test; as Justice Cromwell reiterated, the "'appearance' of impartiality" to a reasonable observer "plays no part in the test for admissibility" (paras 50, 57).

Factors that could, however, require exclusion include (see para 49):

  • "a direct financial interest in the outcome of the litigation"
  • "a very close familial relationship with one of the parties"
  • the probability of expert incurring professional liability if opinion not accepted

The fact that an expert has been "retained, instructed and paid" by the party calling her does not automatically meet the threshold (para 32). Justice Cromwell also noted that a "mere employment relationship with the party calling the evidence will be insufficient" to have it excluded (para 49).

On the facts of WBLI, the Supreme Court agreed with the majority of the Court of Appeal that the evidence of the Grant Thornton expert was admissible; "her evidence was clear that she understood her role as an expert and her duty to the court" and there was no competing evidence of a conflict of interest that would call her compliance into question.


The Supreme Court's decision in WBLI is the cherry on top of a recent batch of cases on expert evidence. Not only does it entrench the expert's fundamental duty to the court to remain independent and impartial, but it clarifies the analytical steps the trial judge must take when deciding the admissibility of expert evidence. Both experts and gatekeepers will know their roles a bit better after this decision.

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

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

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Rogers Partners LLP
WeirFoulds LLP
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Rogers Partners LLP
WeirFoulds LLP
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
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
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
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 (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

To Use 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.


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.


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