What is the test for admissibility of expert evidence at trial?

British Columbia, Canada


The following excerpt is from Dycke v. Nanaimo Paving and Seal Coating Ltd. and Foster, 2007 BCSC 455 (CanLII):

In Mohan, Mr. Justice Sopinka spoke at some considerable length about the issue of relevance and necessity and the admissibility of an opinion. At ¶ 18-19, Sopinka J. wrote: Relevance is a threshold requirement for the admission of expert evidence as with all other evidence. Relevance is a matter to be decided by a judge as question of law. Although prima facie admissible if so related to a fact in issue that it tends to establish it, that does not end the inquiry. This merely determines the logical relevance of the evidence. Other considerations enter into the decision as to admissibility. This further inquiry may be described as a cost benefit analysis, that is ‘whether its value is worth what it costs.’ See McCormick on Evidence (3rd ed. 1984), at p. 544. Cost in this context is not used in its traditional economic sense but rather in terms of its impact on the trial process. Evidence that is otherwise logically relevant may be excluded on this basis, if its probative value is overborne by its prejudicial effect, if it involves an inordinate amount of time which is not commensurate with its value or if it is misleading in the sense that its effect on the trier of fact, particularly a jury, is out of proportion to its reliability. While frequently considered as an aspect of legal relevance, the exclusion of logically relevant evidence on these grounds is more properly regarded as a general exclusionary rule (see Morris v. The Queen, 1983 CanLII 28 (SCC), [1983] 2 S.C.R. 190). Whether it is treated as an aspect of relevance or an exclusionary rule, the effect is the same. The reliability versus effect factor has special significance in assessing the admissibility of expert evidence. There is a danger that expert evidence will be misused and will distort the fact-finding process. Dressed up in scientific language which the jury does not easily understand and submitted through a witness of impressive antecedents, this evidence is apt to be accepted by the jury as being virtually infallible and as having more weight than it deserves… . (my emphasis)

Other Questions


Is a trial judge bound to comment upon all the evidence at trial to support an expert testimony? (British Columbia, Canada)
Can an appellate court "reconsider" evidence presented at trial when there is a reasoned belief that the trial judge must have forgotten or misconceived the evidence? (British Columbia, Canada)
Can an applicant and respondent at a summary trial rely on expert reports, examinations for discovery, interrogatories, use of admissions, and expert reports? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the difference between "new evidence" and “new evidence” at trial? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the relevant relevance and effect factor for admitting expert evidence at trial? (British Columbia, Canada)
How do conflicts in expert evidence affect the suitability of a summary trial? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is a trial judge bound by the strict rules regarding the admissibility of fresh evidence in an appeal? (British Columbia, Canada)
Does a no evidence motion where a real estate agent defendant argued that there was no expert evidence sufficient to establish a standard of care? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is a plaintiff required to lead expert evidence to overcome a no evidence motion? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for admissibility of expert reports containing hearsay evidence? (British Columbia, Canada)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.