The Court of Appeal held that the Trial Judge did not err in its exclusion of expert reports and an Affidavit provided by the Appellant, nor in removing the Appellant from the courtroom during the cross-examination of his treating physician ("Dr. Z").

The Trial Judge properly denied admission of reports by Dr. Z as inadmissible expert evidence. The reports contained opinion evidence and therefore had to comply with the expert evidence requirements in Rules 5.34 and 5.35, including service of a resume and Form 25. The Appellant failed to comply with these requirements and with the deadline in a Case Management Order. The Court of Appeal rejected the Appellant's argument that the Respondents would not have been prejudiced by his failure to follow Rules 5.34 and 5.35 if Dr. Z was qualified as an expert. In reliance on the Appellants' representations that no expert evidence would be called, the Respondents had not obtained their own expert reports or conducted further independent medical examinations.

The Court of Appeal also upheld the Trial Judge's decision to deny the Appellant's request to enter several medical records by way of Affidavit. Under Rule 8.17, the default mode of proof at Trial is oral evidence and the Trial Judge did not err in requiring the Appellant to present his evidence from the witness box. Despite knowing the process for tendering exhibits during oral testimony, the Appellant failed to do so. The Trial Judge also did not err in refusing the Appellant's request to re-open the Trial under Rule 9.13 to admit the Affidavit. The Appellant had prior opportunities to introduce the evidence and there was no explanation for why he did not do so. Additionally, he had failed to make submissions on why Trial should be reopened when invited to do so.

Finally, the Court of Appeal upheld the Trial Judge's decision to remove the Appellant from the courtroom during cross-examination of Dr. Z, pursuant to Rule 8.12(3). Although exclusion of a party is exceptional, the Court of Appeal found it justifiable in the circumstances given the Appellant's repeated interruptions, use of profanity, and failure to comply with warnings.