Canada: Who's A Good Expert Witness?

Last Updated: January 4 2010
Article by Dianne Saxe

Monarch Construction v. Axidata1 and WCI Waste Conversion Inc. v. ADI International Inc.2 ( are both classic cases of competing experts, and how the courts choose between them. They provide excellent warnings for any expert witness in an environmental case.

The Monarch Construction lawsuit arose from an old computer punch card facility on Commander Boulevard, Toronto, a street already famous for pollution precedents. The case had enough complications for a soap opera: three lawsuits, two third-party claims, four counterclaims, and $4 million in damages, plus a flock of lawyers and consultants. The trial pitted the original card manufacturer (Control Data), against the management group (Axidata) that bought the division in 1986.

Both Control Data and Axidata had stored waste toluene, from cleaning the presses, in an underground concrete storage tank. Unfortunately, the tank was designed (and approved by the landlord and regulators) only for emergency spill containment, not for long-term storage. Over the years, much toluene escaped, polluting the property and its neighbours.

Judge Frank ruled that Control Data had printed 90% of the cards, had probably put 90% of the toluene into the tank, and should pay 90% of the cleanup costs. Axidata, which printed the last 10% of the cards and took a long time to do the cleanup, had to pay the remaining 10%. The landlords were cleared of responsibility.

The decision is a fascinating one for anyone engaged in complex, multi-party cleanups, where facts are unclear, decisions take forever, consultants can't agree and contamination keeps showing up. And it's an encouraging one for plaintiffs. The judge took a refreshingly commonsense approach to the Control Data's obstacles and objections, brushing aside lost documents, faded memories, delays and honest mistakes.

Judge Frank was equally direct in her evaluation of the three experts who testified on hydrogeology: Richard Lewis, from ERM in Boston, for Axidata; and Dennis Lafleur, from Aqua Terre, and Roger Woeller, from WESA, both for Control Data. Judge Frank's reasons for preferring Mr. Lewis' evidence are instructive:

Richard Lewis ... has a M.Sc. in geology and is a Certified Professional Geologist through the American Institute of Professional Geologists, specializing in hydrogeologic evaluations of hazardous waste releases. He provides his services throughout the world. He has expertise specific to hazardous waste investigations and remediation practices and has given expert evidence with respect to these. He has extensive experience in transport modeling including modeling of toluene. His experience with underground storage tanks extends over thirty years. 

[49] ... The first [report] is with respect to the cause of toluene contamination and the course it took traveling through the subsurface. The underlying assumptions in this report accord with the evidence. The analysis is transparent and the assumptions upon which it is based are clearly articulated. While a number of errors in the report were identified and acknowledged by Mr. Lewis, they do not undermine the reliability of the report generally...

[51] ... Control Data submits that the weight to be given his evidence with respect to the reasonableness of the remediation and its costs should be limited by the fact that ERM took over the implementation of the RAP in 2002 ... [and] continues to be involved in its implementation...

[52] I agree .. that Mr. Lewis' evidence regarding the implementation and costs of the final stages of the RAP and the ERAP must be examined carefully, not as the evidence of an independent expert, but rather as someone defending his own position. ...

[53] ... Dennis Lafleur ...has a M.Sc. in civil engineering. He is the president and principal shareholder of Aqua Terre Solutions Inc., which provides a range of environmental services including site assessments and remediations, primarily for petroleum companies. He has written on the matter in issue, that being the remediation of ground water containing hydrocarbons.

[54] Mr. Lafleur's report lacks transparency in that it does not disclose all of the underlying assumptions or evidence relied on nor the method by which he arrived at his conclusions. While his oral evidence was of some assistance in providing the information necessary to test the validity of his conclusions, it was not sufficient. Further, his assumptions did not all accord with the evidence and were arrived at with inadequate background information. Mr. Lafleur had no information with respect to the use of the tank prior to the 1986 sale by Control Data. My impression is that in giving his evidence Mr. Lafleur was more anxious to support the conclusions in his report and establish that he was right than he was to assist the court with truth finding. ...

[55] Roger Woeller was retained by Control Data to review Mr. Lewis' reports. He has a M.Sc. in hydrogeology and is registered as a professional geologist in a number of provinces. Like Mr. Lewis, he has provided services worldwide. ...While Mr. Woeller is obviously highly qualified, based on the evidence before me, he does not have the same degree of directly relevant experience on the matters in issue as Mr. Lewis

[56] The extent to which I could place reliance on Mr. Woeller's evidence was further undermined by what I find to be his taking on the role of advocate. His oral evidence was far more supportive of Control Data's position than was his report. .... Overall, where their evidence conflicts, I prefer the evidence of Mr. Lewis.[emphasis added]

On appeal to the Court of Appeal, Judge Frank's decision was upheld in full.

WCI Waste Conversion Inc. v. ADI International Inc. ( also illustrates how expert witnesses who are too eager to please can destroy themselves and their client. This was a breach of contract dispute between partners who developed a composting facility for the Island Waste Management Corp. in Brookfield, Prince Edward Island. WCI was the composting expert; ADI brought financial muscle and access to bonding. After years of litigation, WCI was awarded $4,306,339 plus costs for damages caused by ADI's "greed", bad faith, and repudiation of the construction and operating contracts.

Much of the case turned on expert opinion on the design and how to manage acidic feedstock. ADI offered two experts, Dr. Hallee and Dr. Kelly. Justice Campbell found that ADI had "played a significant role" in "tailoring" their expert reports; as a result, he found them useless:

[224] I have an even greater concern with respect to the overall credibility and independence of that report....David Crandall of ADI was intricately involved in outlining, drafting, revising, and editing Dr. Hallee's "expert" report...

[ 228] An expert report is only of benefit to the court if it is independent and unbiased and is not unduly influenced by someone having a pecuniary interest in the contents of that report. ADI's involvement in drafting and manipulating Hallee's report destroyed any credibility the report may have had...

[243] An expert is to provide an independent and unbiased opinion to the court in respect of a subject matter with which the expert is more familiar than the court. When an expert fails to guard his independence and allows himself to be prostituted to the will of his client, he sacrifices his role as an expert before the court. That is what has happened in this case. ... It is my conclusion that the Kelly report has no credibility and is of no value to this court and I reject it.

The judge found it particularly galling that the experts blindly repeated their client's views, which ADI then purported to rely on as expertise:

[213] Notwithstanding that Dr. Hallee was relying strictly on ADI for information about the aeration system, and notwithstanding that Dr. Hallee told ADI that he was not an expert in aeration systems, and had not read the ECS operating manual, ADI was interested in receiving confirmation from him as some outside expert (so-called) that the aeration system had to be modified. ...

[236] Kelly adopted similar false assumptions... he received that erroneous information from ADI... and did not do any of his own due diligence. Kelly confirmed on cross-examination that he was not an expert on the iteration system or the containers. He only put that information in his reports because ADI asked him to do so...

Experts must strenuously guard their independence:

[242] opposed to being an expert's report upon which the court can rely for assistance, the report is, in large measure, a reflection of ADI's manipulation of information driven by the objective of "tying WCI to responsibility" for the facility's deficiencies, while exonerating ADI. Kelly relinquished his authorship to ADI. In critical subject areas under review at this trial, he did not provide expert analysis but instead adopted "facts" and viewpoints fed to him by ADI without conducting any due diligence or applying independent thought or assessment to the information provided. 

[244] Any time an expert is engaged, the party seeking the expertise must provide background information and documentation together with an explanation of the theories in issue or the question upon which the expert is to opine. It is not uncommon for the expert to request additional information or clarification. However, when the party engaging the expert seeks to control or direct or unduly influence the conclusions reached in the expert's report, that party has diminished the credibility and reliability of the report, and of itself. When an expert succumbs to such influences, he or she compromises their own integrity and the report rendered is of little or no value.

WCI won, largely because Justice Campbell felt he could trust the independence of their experts: 

[131] I found MacPherson's assumptions to be reasonable and realistic and his calculations to be accurate. His testimony was clear and direct and he was unshaken on cross-examination. For example, at one point during cross-examination, ...counsel for ADI suggested to MacPherson, "Yes, and you followed the instructions Mr. Kerrigan gave you." MacPherson immediately replied, "I don't follow anybody's instructions. That's the kiss of death in this business Mr. O'Neil." I note this comment and its sharp contrast to the conduct of the two experts ADI used... 

[246] ... Mr. Gould presented an independent and unbiased assessment of the matters he considered and upon which he was asked to report. ... he does not strain to make statements favorable to WCI, nor ... does he ... shy away from or minimize statements that may reflect negatively on the design criteria or operating performance of WCI. I found his responses on cross-examination to be direct and frank and the explanations provided for in his conclusions were rationally supported by the facts he reviewed. He did not become an advocate for WCI as Hallee and Kelly did for ADI.

An expert who gives up his/her independence to become an advocate loses all credibility, and becomes worse than useless.


1.Monarch Construction Limited v. Axidata Inc., 2009 ONCA 166 (CanLII)

2.WCI v. ADI, 2008 PESCTD 40 (CanLII)

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.

Dianne Saxe
In association with
Related Topics
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