Is a consultation report on multiple personality disorder admissible in evidence?

We are of the view that the consultation report was not admissible for the purpose of establishing that the complainant suffers from a multiple personality disorder, and that the trial judge's acceptance of that diagnosis cannot stand. In the circumstances of this case it is not necessary to consider whether the diagnostic opinion of a medical expert in a patient's hospital record which otherwise meets the factors of admissibility under the rule in Ares v. Venner, or under s. 30 of the Canada Evidence Act, is admissible in evidence as prima facie proof of the opinion stated therein.