During a jury trial for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff sought to qualify a chiropractor as an expert to testify about an in‑home functional assessment.
The court conducted a voir dire to determine whether the proposed testimony satisfied the admissibility criteria for expert evidence under R. v. Mohan.
The judge found the proposed opinion exceeded the witness’s professional expertise, overlapped with evidence already provided by more qualified medical experts, and largely repeated the plaintiff’s own testimony.
Because the proposed evidence lacked necessity and probative value, the witness was not qualified as an expert.
The ruling emphasizes the trial judge’s gatekeeping role in scrutinizing expert evidence and preventing unnecessary or duplicative expert testimony.
