Dr. David Taylor

In a second‑degree murder prosecution involving the death of an infant following severe brain and retinal injuries, the court conducted a voir dire on the admissibility of opinion evidence from treating clinicians.

The defence argued that only forensic pathologists should be permitted to testify regarding the mechanism of injury and that clinicians lacked forensic expertise.

Applying the principles governing expert evidence, including the Mohan framework and considerations from the Goudge Inquiry into Pediatric Forensic Pathology, the court held that the treating neurosurgeon and paediatric ophthalmologist could provide opinion evidence within the limits of their specialized expertise.

The court concluded that their opinions regarding the likely causes of the brain injury and retinal haemorrhages were reliable, highly probative, and did not risk undue prejudice or confusion for the jury.

The clinicians were therefore permitted to testify regarding the likely mechanisms of the observed injuries.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits.

The insurer terminated benefits after 156 weeks, arguing the applicant was not continuously prevented from engaging in suitable employment.

The arbitrator found the applicant was substantially unable to perform his pre-accident work as a tile setter.

However, the arbitrator concluded there were suitable alternative occupations available, specifically a cashier position following a work conditioning program.

The arbitrator also allowed the applicant to recalculate his pre-accident income using the completion method of accounting, which increased his weekly benefit to the $600 maximum.

The applicant was awarded outstanding benefits up to the date he would have completed the work conditioning program, plus interest.