The issue of the disbursement cost of an expert not called at trial was recently discussed by Thomas J. in Forsberg v. Naidoo, 2011 ABQB 705 at paras. 19-23. At para. 22 he identified three steps to evaluate an expert who was retained but did not testify: ... I would not have allowed it without a more detailed explanation of why this expert did not give evidence at trial, specifically: 1. the anticipated relevant area of expertise, 2. how that expertise was expected to be relevant for this case, and 3. why that expertise did not prove relevant at trial.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.