During a personal injury trial arising from a fall from an apartment building fire escape, the plaintiff sought to have a neuro‑psychiatrist provide an opinion on the mechanism of the head injury and introduce an animated demonstrative video illustrating a coup‑contrecoup brain injury.
The court ruled that the late‑served expert report failed to comply with Rule 53.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and would prejudice the defence if admitted during trial.
The court also held that, although the witness was qualified in neuro‑psychiatry, he was not properly qualified to opine on the mechanism of the accident, which was a liability issue better addressed by engineering experts.
The proposed demonstrative video was excluded because it was hypothetical and not grounded in evidence adduced at trial.
The expert was limited to giving evidence within the scope of his earlier reports concerning the plaintiff’s neuro‑psychiatric injuries.
