The plaintiff was rear-ended in a motor vehicle accident and claimed soft tissue damages, chronic pain, anxiety, and depression.
The defendant admitted liability, and the sole issue at trial was damages.
The trial judge qualified a defence psychiatrist as an expert despite serious reservations about his methodology and independence.
The expert's testimony focused primarily on alleged inconsistencies between what the plaintiff told him and her medical records, essentially attacking her credibility rather than providing independent psychiatric assessment.
The jury awarded only general damages of $23,500 and rejected all other heads of damages.
On appeal, the court found the trial judge failed to properly discharge his gatekeeper duty by not conducting a cost-benefit analysis at the qualification stage and failed to exercise his ongoing gatekeeper function when the expert's lack of impartiality became apparent during testimony.
