Patrick Poupore

The plaintiff sought leave to use graphic photographs of his injuries, dirt bike, helmet, and the accident location during his opening statement and throughout a civil jury trial arising from a dirt bike accident.

The court applied the four‑part test for demonstrative aids in opening statements and found that although the photographs were relevant and could assist the trier of fact during the evidentiary phase, their use during opening posed a significant risk of prejudicing the jury by eliciting sympathy.

The court also considered the plaintiff’s failure to properly disclose the photographs earlier under the Rules of Civil Procedure but found no demonstrable prejudice warranting exclusion at trial.

Leave was therefore denied for use during opening but granted for use during the evidentiary portion of the trial, subject to proper authentication.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking an order limiting the parties to one expert witness each in the area of emergency medicine in a medical negligence action.

The plaintiff argued that multiple defence experts would be repetitive, increase costs, lengthen the trial, and risk confusing the jury.

The defendant opposed the motion and proposed to call two experts with differing professional backgrounds, one academic and one practicing physician.

The court held that the Evidence Act limit of three expert witnesses had not been exceeded and that the plaintiff had not demonstrated prejudice or trial unfairness.

The motion to restrict the defendant to a single expert witness was dismissed.