Canada: Bruff-Murphy v Gunawardena

Last Updated: November 7 2017
Article by Field LLP


B. The trial judge was held to have erred in allowing an expert witness, who the judge had reservations about, to testify when said expert was clearly not independent. Judges have a role as gatekeeper to ensure expert witnesses are worthy of being experts by demonstrating independence and an ability to provide evidence that is fair, objective and non-partisan.

Bruff-Murphy v Gunawardena, 2017 ONCA 502, per Lauwers, Hourigan and Benotto, JJ.A. [4245]


The Appellant (Plaintiff) was rear ended by the Respondent (Defendant) and alleged that she suffered multiple soft tissue injuries to her neck, lower back and right shoulder. The Appellant also alleged that the accident left her with a chronic pain condition, anxiety, and depression. Liability was admitted by the Respondent.

At trial, the Appellant called a number of physicians who had either treated or examined her, two of whom were retained by the insurers to conduct independent medical examinations. The consensus among these witnesses was that she had suffered in the manner she complained of, and that the cause of her suffering was the MVA.

The defense called two witnesses, both of them medical expert witnesses who had been retained by the defense to conduct IME's. The first was an orthopedic specialist who testified that there was nothing wrong with the Appellant from a musculoskeletal point of view. The second witness was a psychiatrist, Dr. Monte Bail. Counsel for the Appellant objected to Dr. Bail testifying on the grounds that his report was essentially an attack on the Appellant and that he was biased. Appellant's counsel argued in favor of being able to cross-examine Dr. Bail on findings made in other cases where he was not an independent witness, but this was denied by the trial judge.

"It became apparent to the trial judge during the expert's testimony that he crossed the line from an objective witness to an advocate for the defence" but "[d]espite his concerns, the trial judge did nothing to exclude the opinion evidence or alert the jury about the problems with the expert's testimony" (¶3). The trial judge allowed Dr. Bail to testify but that Dr. Bail could not testify on certain sections of his report and was not to testify as to the Appellant's credibility.

Dr. Bail gave evidence that his practice was not to review a subject's medical records before meeting with them, but rather to review their medical records to look for discrepancies after meeting with the subject.

In summary, Dr. Bail testified that he felt the Plaintiff did not develop any psychiatric disorders or limitations as a result of the accident and required no medication as a result of the accident. He opined that her pre-accident profile was not exacerbated by the accident and that she did not require housekeeping or attendant care as a result of any psychiatric condition.

Dr. Bail was the last witness to testify and after closing submissions, the judge gave his charge to the jury. The judge did not instruct the jury regarding the duty of expert witnesses or raise any concerns with respect to the substance of Dr. Bail's testimony or his independence.

There was a threshold motion brought by the defense and the Court held that the threshold had been met. The jury assessed general damages at $23,500 and rejected all other heads of damages including special damages, future care costs and past and future income loss.

The issues on the Plaintiff's appeal were:

  1. Did the trial judge err in not permitting Plaintiff's counsel to cross-examine Dr. Bail on prior court and arbitral findings against him?
  2. Did the trial judge err in qualifying Dr. Bail as an expert and/or in not intervening or taking steps to exclude Dr. Bail's testimony?

II. HELD: For the appellant; appeal allowed and new trial ordered.

  1. The trial judge was upheld in refusing to allow the Plaintiff's counsel to cross-examine Dr. Bail about comments made about Dr. Bail in prior proceedings. It was held that prior comments made about an expert do not amount to a finding of discreditable conduct. They are simply the opinions of a judge and arbitrators regarding Dr. Bail's testimony in other cases. The comments would be of no assistance to the jury without an understanding of their factual foundation.
  2. The trial judge was found to have erred in permitting Dr. Bail to testify and in failing to exclude in whole or in part Dr. Bail's testimony. It was held that the basic structure relating to the admissibility of expert evidence has two main components:

    1. The first component requires the court to consider the four traditional "threshold" requirements for the admissibility of evidence established in R v Mohan, [1994] 2 SCR 9:

      1. Relevance.
      2. Necessity in assisting the tier of fact.
      3. Absence of an exclusionary rule.
      4. Need for the expert to be properly qualified.
    2. The second component is the "discretionary gatekeeping" function of the court, which requires the judge to balance the potential risks and benefits of admitting the evidence in order to decide whether the potential benefits justify the risks. Expert witnesses are required to be independent and their function is to provide the trier of fact with expert opinion evidence that is fair, objective and non-partisan. It is the judge's role to evaluate the expert and ensure that his/her evidence is meeting this standard.

      1. The analysis under this component is best thought of as a specific application of the court's general residual discretion to exclude evidence whose prejudicial effect exceeds its probative value.
      2. In this situation, the potential risk of admitting Dr. Bail's evidence far outweighed the potential benefit of the testimony. It was evident from a review of Dr. Bail's report that there was a high probability that he would prove to be a troublesome witness. He was intent on advocating for the defence and unwilling to properly fulfill his duties to the court. Dr. Bail was not bringing to bear any medical evidence and thus the benefit of his evidence was very low.
      3. Dr. Bail's methodology was held to have raised a major red flag; it was unfair for Dr. Bail to search for discrepancies between a short interview and several years of medical records and this unfairness was exacerbated by Dr. Bail not giving the Plaintiff an opportunity to explain the discrepancies.
      4. There were also issues in relation to Dr. Bail's impartiality, as he set up tests for the Plaintiff that the court found were "deliberately interpreted to fit a theory of mendacity" and Dr. Bail showed the court that he was looking to assess the Plaintiff's credibility rather than just the medical evidence.
  3. With the finding under the second issue, the Court of Appeal found it unnecessary to consider the Browne v Dunn argument.


The Court of Appeal sets out clear criteria that an expert must meet in order to be deemed fit and credible by the court. Within the decision, the court also sets out clear steps that a judge must take in assessing whether an expert is fit to give evidence to the court. This decision provides an example of an expert who stepped over the line from an independent witness to an advocate for a party, and shows that court should not and will not allow this. An expert is to remain independent no matter which party they are appearing on behalf of.

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
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
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