The applicant society sought to introduce the expert opinion evidence of a psychiatrist regarding the impact of substance abuse on parenting in a child protection trial.
The respondents opposed the admission of the evidence.
The court conducted a voir dire and applied the Mohan and Abbey tests for the admissibility of expert evidence.
The court found that the proposed evidence was neither relevant nor necessary, as the expert had not met the parents or the child and could only speak in generalities.
Furthermore, the expert was not properly qualified in the specific area of addictions, and the late service of the expert report caused undue prejudice to the respondents.
The request to introduce the expert evidence was denied.