During a dangerous offender sentencing hearing, the Crown tendered a forensic psychiatrist as an expert witness.
The offender and amicus curiae challenged the expert's qualifications, arguing he exhibited professional credibility bias.
A voir dire revealed the expert's reports contained numerous significant errors, including copying large sections from a report about a different offender.
The court found the expert demonstrated professional credibility bias by failing to objectively reconsider his opinions when confronted with these errors.
The court excluded the expert opinion evidence, concluding that the risks of admitting the evidence outweighed its benefits.
