On a civil appeal arising from historic sexual and physical abuse allegations based largely on recovered memories, the court held that the trial judge erred by using expert psychological evidence to corroborate the truth of the respondent's allegations and resolve a credibility contest.
Expert evidence could explain memory processes and damages, but could not be used to decide the ultimate issues of credibility, reliability, and liability.
The court therefore set aside the judgment, dismissed the assault claim, and held that a new trial was unnecessary because the admissible evidence was evenly balanced.
The court also allowed the appellant's defamation counterclaim in part, finding that qualified privilege did not protect defamatory communications sent to a former friend who had no reciprocal interest or duty to receive them.
