3 total
The Court of Appeal set aside a permanent sealing order on expert testing materials because the documents were no longer in the court's possession.
The appellants appealed a motion judge's order making permanent a temporary sealing order relating to psychometric testing documents that had been marked as exhibits during a 2012 personal injury trial.
The respondents sought to make the temporary sealing order permanent to protect the integrity of test procedures and materials.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in two respects: first, by attempting to seal documents that were no longer in the court's possession as of December 2017, and second, by failing to properly apply the Sierra Club/Dagenais/Mentuk test for confidentiality orders.
The court emphasized that the motion judge should have examined the specific documents and considered whether they were already in the public domain through trial evidence and reasons, and should have weighed the public interest in access to materials facilitating cross-examination of expert witnesses.
Condominium owner evicted for persistent, severe breaches of condo rules and previous court orders.
The applicant condominium corporation sought to evict the respondent owner and his occupant due to years of disruptive behaviour, unauthorized modifications to common elements, and threats to staff and contractors.
Despite multiple previous court orders, including the removal of the occupant and findings of contempt, the respondents continued to breach the condominium rules and court orders.
Noting the respondent owner's mental illness and the severe impact on the condominium community, the court concluded that previous orders were insufficient and ordered the eviction of the respondent owner.
Defence neuropsychologist allowed to testify but barred from credibility opinions.
During a civil jury trial arising from a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiffs sought to exclude the testimony of a defence neuropsychologist regarding neuropsychological testing and symptom validity assessment.
The court applied the admissibility framework for expert evidence from R. v. Mohan and the two‑step reliability analysis from R. v. Abbey.
While the expert’s methodology raised concerns regarding cultural and linguistic validity of standardized tests and the absence of normative data for the plaintiff’s background, the court concluded the opinion met the threshold reliability for admissibility.
To preserve fairness and avoid improper commentary on credibility, the court permitted the expert to testify on testing methodology, behavioural observations, and differential diagnosis but prohibited opinions implying deceit, malingering, or general credibility.
The evidence was therefore admitted subject to strict limits and jury instructions.
