Need help distinguishing Beasley?

October 20, 2011,
The existing jurisprudence relating to whether an expert witness must comply withRule 53.03 is in a state of flux (McNeill v. Filthaut, 2011 ONSC 2165 at para. 52).

In Beasley et al. v. Barrand (2010 ONSC 2095), the court in the tort trial denied the insurer’s motion to: (a) file medical expert reports that were used in the statutory accident benefits claim, and (b) call the doctors who authored those reports as experts at trial. Each physician had only seen the plaintiff on one occasion approximately seven years prior to the trial. The court held that non-compliance by the defence with the newly enacted Rule 53.03 was fatal to its motion. Rule 53.03 (2.1) enumerates the content that is now required in an expert’s report.

Written by Stephen Taran