Digests

Decision Information

Decision Content

Fairford First Nation v. Canada ( Attorney General )

T-2243-93

Rothstein J.

21/1/98

6 pp.

Application to qualify expert witness-Criteria to be applied for admission of expert evidence as set out in R. v. Mohan, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9: (a) relevance; (b) necessity in assisting trier of fact; (c) absence of any exclusionary rule; (d) properly qualified expert-Court accepting evidence relevant-Defendants not relying on any exclusionary rule-As to qualification, admissibility not depending upon means by which skill acquired, but on satisfying court witness sufficiently experienced in subject-matter at issue-Witness herein not acquiring skill through formal education, but from many years of work, first with Government of Canada, later as private consultant, when services provided largely to First Nations bands-Not disqualified as expert because of way acquired knowledge-Witness never before qualified as expert witness-Plaintiffs not providing any evidence suggesting witness's alleged field of expertise ever receiving acceptance by any court-No finite range of topics about which expert may testify-Field in continual state of flux: see Sopinka, Lederman and Bryant, The Law of Evidence in Canada, Butterworths (1992)-That never before qualified as expert or that no one else may ever have been qualified in his field, not precluding consideration as properly qualified expert-Court satisfied witness studied, has knowledge in area in assessing impacts of resource development on Aboriginal people-As to necessity, question whether witness will provide information outside experience, knowledge of judge such that necessary to enable judge to appreciate matters in issue due to their technical nature-Much of evidence summarizing factual evidence-Nothing technical about such information requiring expert evidence to enable judge to appreciate matters raised-Having regard to "necessity" for expert evidence as explained by Sopinka J. in R. v. Mohan, witness's testimony not necessary-Evidence not admitted as not necessary for Court to appreciate issues in trial.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.