Time Versus Evidence: Do Time Restrictions on NCRDM Applications Change Expert Witness Decisions?
In R. v Landrick [2022] BCCA 181, the appeal hinges on new expert evidence with the application of a “Not Criminally Responsible due to Mental Disability” (NCRMD) application. While an application for an NCRMD assessment is generally used as a defence during an original trial, there are instances where it can be used on appeal. The explanation given by the appeal Judge in this case calls attention to how limited time to receive an NCRMD assessment can impact expert witnesses
“Don’t believe your ears!” - R v Prasad Reaffirms the Role of Expert Opinion Evidence
In criminal trials, the courts have stressed that the trial process must be respected, and that the role of the trier of fact must never be usurped by another. However, there are often circumstances where, in order for a trier of fact to draw the desired inferences from the facts presented at trial, the court will allow a witness with specialized knowledge or expertise to provide opinion evidence to assist the trier of fact in their analysis.
“Third one’s the charm”? – not when it comes to experts!
Provincially, legislation such as The Manitoba Evidence Act sets the limit of expert witnesses to three per side. Legislators that bring in such provisions would have us believe that this is done in the name of efficiency, timeliness, and cost-effectiveness, but, in fact, it puts lawyers and their clients in a difficult bind. Expert limits increase the risks of unethical decision-making in the name of efficiency and might altogether be more costly and time-consuming for the l
“Don’t believe your ears!” - R v Prasad Reaffirms the Role of Expert Opinion Evidence
In criminal trials, the courts have stressed that the trial process must be respected, and that the role of the trier of fact must never be usurped by another. However, there are often circumstances where, in order for a trier of fact to draw the desired inferences from the facts presented at trial, the court will allow a witness with specialized knowledge or expertise to provide opinion evidence to assist the trier of fact in their analysis.
“Third one’s the charm”? – not when it comes to experts!
“Justice delayed is justice denied.” This legal maxim haunts the Canadian legal system, where court resources are thin and delays result in hundreds of cases being stayed (i.e., discontinued as continuation would bring the judicial system into disrepute).In response to this, legislatures are bringing in limits on how many expert witnesses or reports may be brought into a lawsuit. For example, section 7 of the Canada Evidence Act limits each party.
