In a family law proceeding involving allegations of parental alienation, the court conducted a voir dire to determine the admissibility of proposed expert evidence from a developmental psychologist retained to provide a generic report on parental alienation theory.
Applying the admissibility framework from R. v. Mohan and the two‑stage analysis articulated in R. v. Abbey, the court considered necessity, reliability, and the balance between probative value and potential prejudice.
The court concluded that limited portions of the expert’s report explaining common alienating strategies and behaviours of alienated children would assist the trier of fact.
However, other portions—including general discussions of prevalence, cult analogies, therapeutic practices, and proposed remedial solutions—were excluded as lacking sufficient relevance or probative value.
The expert was also prohibited from answering fact‑based hypothetical questions because the retainer was limited to providing generic educational evidence rather than case‑specific opinions.
