Truth On Trial: The Impact Of Unreliable Expert Witnesses

Field LLP


Field Law is a western and northern regional business law firm with offices in Calgary and Edmonton, Alberta and Yellowknife, Northwest Territories. The Firm has been proactively serving clients and providing legal counsel for over 100 years supporting the specific and ever-evolving business needs of regional, national and international clients.
The Ontario Court of Appeal case R v Hason highlights the critical issue of unreliable expert testimony. The conviction of Richard Hason was influenced by the testimony of Dr. Scott Woodside...
Canada Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on

The Ontario Court of Appeal case R v Hason highlights the critical issue of unreliable expert testimony. The conviction of Richard Hason was influenced by the testimony of Dr. Scott Woodside, whose credibility was later questioned due to careless report preparation. This case emphasizes the need for thorough scrutiny of expert evidence in both criminal and civil cases to ensure fair legal outcomes. Legal professionals must ensure that expert reports are detailed, individualized, and free of boilerplate language to maintain judicial integrity.

The criminal case of R v Hason, reviewed by the Ontario Court of Appeal, underscores the complexities that can arise when an expert's reliability is later questioned. Richard Hason was convicted of serious charges and designated a dangerous offender, with his sentencing heavily influenced by the psychiatric evaluation conducted by Dr. Scott Woodside. However, Dr. Woodside's reliability was called into question following revelations in a subsequent case, R v Nettleton, where he admitted to treating significant parts of his reports as "boilerplate" and acknowledged carelessness in their preparation. These revelations cast doubt on the testimony he provided in Hason's earlier trial.

Although the issue of Dr. Woodside's credibility, revealed in R v Nettleton, was not raised during oral hearings, the court proactively addressed it, underscoring its duty to protect against unreliable expert evidence. While Hason's conviction was upheld, the court permitted an appeal regarding the penalty due to Dr. Woodside's unreliable testimony, resulting in a new trial on this matter.

Insights from R v Hason for Civil Litigation

The handling of Dr. Woodside's testimony in R v Hason provides crucial insights for civil litigation, particularly in bodily injury claims. This case highlights the critical importance of expert reliability and judicial scrutiny.

Necessity of Rigorous Expert Examination

R v Hason and R v Nettleton illustrate the necessity for rigorous scrutiny of expert witnesses in bodily injury claims. Judges will scrutinize the accuracy and completeness of expert reports, ensuring that only credible, well-substantiated opinions influence the adjudication of claims. This protects the judicial process and the rights of injured parties. In bodily injury cases, where damages and causation hinge on expert testimony, the reliability of such testimony is paramount. Enhanced scrutiny ensures fair settlements and decisions, safeguarding against undervaluing or overvaluing claims.

Furthermore, R v Hason highlights the inappropriateness of using boilerplate clauses in expert reports. Boilerplate language can mask the unique aspects of each case, leading to generic and potentially misleading conclusions. This practice undermines the credibility of the expert and the reliability of their testimony. Experts must avoid boilerplate clauses and instead provide detailed, case-specific analyses that accurately reflect the circumstances of each individual case. This ensures that the expert's testimony is relevant, reliable, and helpful to the court's determination.

Potential for Re-Examining Past Cases

Compromised expert credibility may provide grounds for appeals in previous cases influenced by questionable testimony. Parties adversely affected by unreliable expert opinions may seek to appeal, potentially leading to more accurate outcomes. R v Hason highlights the possibility of revisiting and potentially overturning past decisions where boilerplate expert testimony played a significant role. Still, that is not a remedy available in civil matters and so the responsibility rests largely on counsel to be careful in retaining and instructing experts and to be vigilant in questioning or cross examining experts in a civil context.

Judicial Responsibility in Expert Testimony

R v Hason demonstrates the courts readiness to scrutinize expert evidence to maintain judicial integrity. This proactive role ensures fairness and accuracy in bodily injury claims, where expert testimony significantly impacts liability and damages. Judicial vigilance is crucial in complex cases, ensuring decisions are based on meticulously vetted expert testimony. However, due to the rarity of trials, the responsibility largely rests on counsel to identify and address issues with expert reports.

Practical Guidance for Counsel + Experts

At a time when insurance and legislative reforms aim to reduce costs and create trial efficiencies, the role of expert reports in justice administration is significant. R v Hason underscores the critical need for counsel and experts to take steps to ensure the reliability and credibility of expert testimony. By adhering to these best practices, the integrity of legal proceedings can be upheld, leading to more effective outcomes for clients and enhancing the expert's reputation.

For Experts

With limited expert rosters, experts often handle multiple cases for the same counsel. It is extremely important for experts to provide individualized, thoughtful reports, avoiding boilerplate or precedent paragraphs, to maintain credibility. Their reputations hinge on this diligence, as duplicative reports in matters that go to trial can put their credibility at risk. While most reports may never see a courtroom, those that do must withstand rigorous scrutiny to protect the expert's reputation. Even in the civil context, where trials are rare, the risks remain significant.

For Counsel

Counsel plays a pivotal role in ensuring the reliability of expert testimony. Clear instructions to experts should emphasize the expectation for individualized and well-substantiated reports. Counsel must actively scrutinize expert reports, avoiding reliance on boilerplate language, and ensure that experts understand the importance of tailoring their evaluations to the specific details of each case. This proactive approach can prevent the recycling of boilerplate wording and help bring rigorous scrutiny to the expert reports of the adverse party. By doing so, counsel assists the court in assessing the quality of the expert evidence, potentially leading to a better result for their client.


The case of R v Hason highlights the profound impact that expert testimony can have on legal outcomes at trial, underscoring the necessity for rigorous scrutiny to ensure justice is accurately served. It serves as a reminder of the crucial need for meticulous attention to the details and reliability of expert evaluations in all legal matters, particularly in bodily injury claims.

Field Law's Litigation Group has extensive experience in crafting and examining critical expert reports. Please contact Justin Denis in Calgary or Jeremy Taylor in Edmonton if you require a lawyer.

Link to decision: R v Hason, 2024 ONCA 369

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.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More