CÔTÉ, slatter AND wakeling jja

5.34: Service of expert’s report
5.35: Sequence of exchange of experts’ reports
5.36: Objection to expert’s report
5.37: Questioning experts before trial
5.38: Continuing obligation on expert
5.39: Use of expert’s report at trial without expert
5.40: Expert’s attendance at trial

Case Summary

The Plaintiff was hired to deliver and deposit clay to a subdivision during the 2005 construction season in Edmonton, but was delayed for problems that were not their fault. The Defendant terminated the contract and the Plaintiff sued. The Chambers Judge found that the Defendant did not have grounds to terminate the contract. The Defendant appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the testimony of one of the witnesses should not have been admitted because they were not qualified as an expert.

The Court considered the definition of an expert, and stated that, in Alberta the definition of an expert is less narrow than the definition in the Ontario Rules. The Court further stated that Part 5 of the Alberta Rules is meant to avoid surprise at Trial and applies to any witness who proposes to give expert opinion evidence. The Court found no palpable and overriding errors in the Chambers Judge’s Decision and, as such, dismissed the Appeal.

View CanLII Details