The appellant appealed a trial judgment that awarded zero net damages following a motor vehicle accident.
The appellant argued the trial judge erred by excluding her proposed medical expert, a neurologist, and by refusing to leave the issues of loss of competitive advantage and medical expenses to the jury.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's exercise of her gatekeeper function to exclude the expert for lacking objectivity, nor in her conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to put the disputed damages questions to the jury.
