Dr. Kerry Smith

The defendant Maryvale brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action due to his failure to pay two costs awards totaling $51,500 arising from a successful appeal and a dismissed leave application to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The plaintiff argued the court lacked jurisdiction under Rules 57.03 and 60.12 as the costs orders did not arise from a contested motion or interlocutory order.

The court found that even if it had jurisdiction, dismissing the action would not be just, as the Court of Appeal had ordered a new trial without making costs payment a precondition, the costs were not sanctions for bad behaviour, the plaintiff's claim was not devoid of merit, and the plaintiff was impecunious.

This appeal concerns the admissibility of participant expert evidence in a civil jury trial involving allegations of sexual assault.

The respondent sued for damages for sexual assaults allegedly committed in the mid-1990s.

A mental health clinician who treated the respondent in prison was permitted to give evidence as a participant expert.

The trial judge admitted the clinician's unredacted reports and allowed him to testify about their contents.

The Court of Appeal found that the clinician exceeded the proper scope of a participant expert by providing opinions on whether the alleged sexual assaults occurred and whether the respondent suffered harm caused by such assaults.

The court held that these opinions failed to meet the threshold requirements for admissibility under the Mohan/White Burgess test and that their prejudicial effect outweighed their probative value.

A new trial was ordered.

The plaintiff sought to admit the evidence of Dr. Kerry Smith, a mental health clinician who provided therapy to the plaintiff in prison, as a participant expert in a civil action for damages for alleged sexual abuse.

The court ruled on the admissibility and scope of Dr. Smith's evidence, qualifying him as an expert and finding his evidence relevant to psychological harm and the occurrence of abuse.

The court applied the "participant expert" framework from Westerhof v. Gee Estate, allowing testimony based on observations, impressions, and treatment documented in his reports, but precluding opinions extending beyond these limits without compliance with Rule 53.03.