PRACTICE |
Evidence |
Halford v. Seed Hawk Inc.
T-2406-93
2002 FCT 764, Pelletier J.
10/7/02
6 pp.
Expert evidence--Plaintiffs opposing qualification of Mr. Anderson tendered by defendant Seed Hawk Inc. as expert in mechanical engineering to give opinion evidence as to design, operation of mechanical devices, on ground has no relevant training or experience in art which is subject matter of patent --Mr. Anderson acknowledging having no prior knowledge of prior art relevant to litigation; such knowledge of prior art as now possesses acquired for purposes of present litigation--Criteria for admission of expert evidence set out in R. v. Mohan, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9: relevance, necessity in assisting trier of fact, absence of any exclusionary rule, properly qualified expert--Evidence of mere mechanical engineer or scientific man who speaks from general knowledge rather than from special knowledge or art concerned will not be regarded by court as entitled to much weight: Nekoosa Packaging Corp. v. AMCA International Ltd. (1994), 56 C.P.R. (3d) 470--Case not standing for proposition that expert speaking from general knowledge cannot be qualified as expert in matter in which there is body of special knowledge--Mr. Anderson's qualifications satisfying Court that his training, experience as mechanical engineer such that would be of assistance to Court in understanding design, operation of mechanical devices herein.