Canada: Experts Under The Microscope: Bias And Junk Science In Canada's Courtrooms

Over the past year or so, a series of Canadian decisions have caused lawyers, judges and legal commentators to refocus on the issue of expert evidence in litigation.  From the interaction of expert witnesses with the people who pay their fees, to concerns with the quality and usefulness of the evidence they provide, our system is getting an overhaul.

This discussion will look at efforts to ensure that only helpful expert evidence finds its way into litigation.  This is not intended to be a thorough review of the law of expert evidence.  Instead, its goal is to provide claims handlers with updated suggestions for considering expert reports when presented by claimants and their lawyers.  However, since claims are ultimately disposed of (either by settlement or trial) with reference to the proof being offered and how it might play out in a courtroom, an understanding of some of these recent developments is essential to effective claims handling.  Knowing when to raise questions about the quality of expert opinions being put forward by the other side can play a major role in the proper assessment and reserving of a given claim.  Strategically communicated, your response to the claimant's expert report can also have a profound effect upon a successful settlement or denial of a claim.

The Basics of Expert Evidence

The healthy skepticism that gets claims handlers and their defence counsel asking the right questions is a product of what has been described as the court's "gatekeeping" role when considering expert evidence.  A few basics will serve as a springboard to this part of the discussion.

First, the core purpose of expert evidence in litigation is to help judges and juries make sense of aspects of our world that are highly complex when those things are part of what has given rise to a claim.  An obvious example is a bodily injury.  A simple broken leg can become highly complex when we need to know how it is to be treated, if surgery is required and its long term effects in terms of pain, gait abnormalities and other forms of disability.  These are not matters within common knowledge and clearly require the assistance of an expert in medicine (sometimes several) to sort out.  The courts have embraced the value of expert witnesses as providers of necessary assistance in understanding scientifically or technologically complex fact situations.

Next, fundamental to the notion of using expert witnesses, is that they are to assist the court.  In order to do so effectively, they must be objective and impartial.  This creates a certain amount of tension in the presentation of expert evidence, since it is almost always put forward by one of the combatants in the litigation.  Expert witnesses are very seldom court-appointed.  In spite of the fact that their fees are paid by litigants, experts are expected to give objective and unbiased opinions about the matter upon which they are asked to comment and its application to the circumstances of the claim.

Finally, the specific evidence given needs to actually be helpful to the court in making its findings of fact and rendering a decision.  This requires that expert evidence actually reflects established scientific or technical knowledge.  It also means that the expert opinion needs to be necessary in order for the court to make its decision.

Analysis of an opposing expert's opinion will always include careful consideration of the factual assumptions upon which it is based and the quality of any statistical analysis undertaken.  These remain important questions and have not changed as a result of recent case law developments.  The newer decisions open new fronts on inquiry and challenge which, if successful, can have a profound impact on claim outcomes.

The need for objectivity and scientific validity are at the heart of important recent Canadian decisions.

Independence, Impartiality and Bias

In 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada called for renewed emphasis on ensuring the independence and impartiality of expert opinions being placed before the courts.  In WBLI v. Abbott and Haliburton [2015] 2 SCR 182 Justice Cromwell, writing for the unanimous court described the problem:

[11]  There have been long-standing concerns about whether expert witnesses hired by parties are impartial in the sense that they are expressing their own unbiased professional opinion and whether they are independent in the sense that their opinion is the product of their own, independent conclusions based on their own knowledge and judgment: see, e.g., G.R. Anderson, Expert Evidence (3rd ed. 2014), at p. 509; S.N. Lederman, A.W. Bryant and M.K. Fuerst, The Law of Evidence in Canada (4th ed. 2014), at p. 783.  As Sir George Jessel, M.R., put it in the 1870s, "[u]ndoubtedly there is a natural bias to do something serviceable for those who employ you and adequately remunerate you.  It is very natural, and it is so effectual, that we constantly see persons, instead of considering themselves witnesses, rather consider themselves as the paid agents of the person who employs them": Lord Abinger v. Ashton (1873), L.R. 17 Eq. 358, at p. 374.

[12]  Recent experience has only exacerbated these concerns; we are now all too aware that an expert's lack of independence and impartiality can result in egregious miscarriages of justice: R. v. D.D., 2000 SCC 43, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 275, at para. 52.  As observed by Beveridge J.A. in this case, The Commission on Proceedings Involving Guy Paul Morin: Report (1998) authored by the Honourable Fred Kaufman and the Inquiry into Pediatric Forensic Patho9logy in Ontario: Report (2008) conducted by the Honourable Stephen T. Goudge provide two striking examples where "[s]eemingly solid and impartial, but flawed, forensic scientific opinion has played a prominent role in miscarriages of justice": para. 105.  Other reports outline the critical need for impartial and independent expert evidence in civil litigation: ibid., at para. 106; see the Right Honourable Lord Woolf, Access to Justice: Final Report (1996); the Honourable Coulter A. Osborne, Civil Justice Reform Project: Summary of Findings & Recommendations (2007).

Justice Cromwell went on to describe a process for determining how best to deal with allegations that an expert opinion is biased or otherwise lacks the necessary attributes of impartiality and independence.  Less important to the purpose of this discussion are the specific steps to be followed by the court in considering attacks on impartiality and independence.  More important are the potential remedies:

  1. The opinion evidence may be ruled inadmissible and therefore never considered by the judge or jury.  If it can be established that by reason of interest in the outcome of the litigation or assumption of the role of an advocate for a party, as examples, an expert is unable or unwilling to fulfill the primary duty of impartiality described above, the opinion may be excluded entirely.  In other words, the expert evidence is never heard by the court.  Such instances will be relatively rare. 
  2. The opinion evidence may be heard by the judge or jury but subjected to questions of weight.  Concerns that fall short of establishing that the expert lacks the ability or willingness to fulfill the primary duty may be taken into account in deciding how much weight to attach to the opinion evidence.  Issues such as the frequency of testimony for one side or another and relationships with the party retaining the expert that do not entirely rule out objectivity can thus still play a role in considering the opinion evidence, and may ultimately result in it receiving little or no weight in the court's decision.

Key Take-away

The take away for all of us is that our assessment of an expert must include consideration of whether the expert him or herself is being truly impartial and independent in rendering the opinion. 

  • Does the expert have a relationship with the opposing party or an interest in the outcome of the litigation that is preventing him or her from fulfilling the primary duty to the court? 
  • Is the expert assuming the role of advocate in promoting the position of the other side rather than assisting the court in making sense of scientific or technical information?

Proper Qualifications of Experts and the Undesirability of "Junk Science"

Another aspect of expert evidence that has received recent close attention from Canadian Courts is the importance of only scientifically reliable opinions, given by witnesses properly qualified to give them, being placed before the courts.  The previously mentioned Supreme Court of Canada decision in WBLI (supra) provides a starting point:

[16}  Since at least the mid-1990s, the Court has responded to a number of concerns about the impact on the litigation process of expert evidence of dubious value.  The jurisprudence has clarified and tightened the threshold requirements for admissibility, added new requirements in order to assure reliability, particularly or novel scientific evidence, and emphasized the important role that judges should play as "gatekeepers" to screen out proposed evidence whose value does not justify the risk of confusion, time and expense that may result from its admission.

In this context as well, there is a renewed emphasis on ensuring only appropriate (i.e. helpful and reliable) opinion evidence be heard from witnesses properly qualified to give it.  Where expert evidence falls short of meeting these requirements, the following remedies are available:

  1. Where the opinion expressed is not within the scope of the witness' expertise, his or her testimony is inadmissible.
  2. Expert testimony which is based upon novel science or uses science for a novel purpose and which is unreliable as a result (i.e. so called "junk science") will not be admitted.

Whether the expert is remaining within the scope of his or her expertise will be a question of fact based upon analysis of the witness' specific education, experience and the nature of the opinion proffered.

The rule that "junk science" is inadmissible requires the court to consider both the context in which the opinion is being presented and whether the scientific underpinnings of the expert evidence have been widely accepted in the courts as scientific.  If the science or the specific purpose for which it is being used is novel, the court must then go on to consider its reliability.

The December 2015 decision of Justice Stack of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador dealt with these issues in Anderson v. Canada (Attorney General) 2015 CanLII 83951 (NLSCRD).  In considering the novel applications of social and psychological science to the effects of abuse in the residential schools, Stack J found that specific expert opinion lacked the requisite reliability to render it admissible.  The evidence was therefore entirely excluded.  While the court's analysis was specific to the nature of the expert evidence before it, the mechanics of the decision are perhaps less important than the clear signal from the Canadian judiciary that this aspect of expert testimony will be subjected to greater scrutiny going forward.

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