Moore v. Getahun,

JurisdictionOntario
JudgeLaskin, Sharpe and Simmons, JJ.A.
Neutral Citation2015 ONCA 55
Citation(2015), 329 O.A.C. 363 (CA),2015 ONCA 55,124 OR (3d) 321,381 DLR (4th) 471,[2015] OJ No 398 (QL),329 OAC 363,381 D.L.R. (4th) 471,124 O.R. (3d) 321,[2015] O.J. No 398 (QL),(2015), 329 OAC 363 (CA),329 O.A.C. 363
Date29 January 2015
CourtCourt of Appeal (Ontario)

Moore v. Getahun (2015), 329 O.A.C. 363 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] O.A.C. TBEd. JA.036

Blake Moore (respondent) v. Dr. Tajedin Getahun, The Scarborough Hospital - General Division, Dr. John Doe and Jack Doe (appellant)

(C58338; 2015 ONCA 55)

Indexed As: Moore v. Getahun et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Laskin, Sharpe and Simmons, JJ.A.

January 29, 2015.

Summary:

The plaintiff sued the defendant orthopedic surgeon claiming that he suffered permanent damage to the muscles in his wrist due to compartment syndrome allegedly caused by the application of a full circumferential cast to treat a fractured wrist. The trial judge preferred the evidence of the plaintiff's expert witness over that of the orthopedic surgeon's expert witnesses and found that the application of the full circumferential cast was a breach of the standard of care and had caused the compartment syndrome to develop. The orthopedic surgeon appealed. The surgeon argued that the trial judge erred in ruling that it was improper for counsel to assist an expert witness in the preparation of the expert's report. The plaintiff agreed that the view expressed by the trial judge was erroneous, but argued that her error had no impact on the outcome of the trial. The surgeon also argued that the trial judge erred in the use she made of the surgeon's expert witness reports. The reports were not entered into evidence and the parties proceeded to call viva voce evidence from all expert witnesses. The expert reports were, however, made available to the judge as an aide memoire. In assessing the credibility of the expert witnesses called by the surgeon, the trial judge took into account what she perceived to be contradictions between the experts' viva voce evidence and the written reports. The plaintiff also conceded that the trial judge erred, but argued that this error was also harmless. A number of parties intervened regarding the expert evidence issues.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The court concluded that the trial judge erred in holding that it was unacceptable for counsel to review and discuss the draft expert reports. The trial judge further erred in using the written expert reports that were neither entered into evidence, nor the subject of cross-examination, to contradict and discredit aspects of the viva voce evidence of the surgeon's expert witnesses. The court concluded, however, that those errors did not affect the outcome. As no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice flowed from the errors, the court would not be justified in ordering a new trial.

Evidence - Topic 7004.1

Opinion evidence - Expert evidence - General - Participation of counsel in preparation of expert opinion - The plaintiff sued an orthopedic surgeon for malpractice - The trial judge, preferring the evidence of the plaintiff's expert witness over that of the surgeon's expert witnesses, found a breach of the standard of care - The orthopedic surgeon appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred in criticizing the surgeon's counsel for discussing with their expert medical witness the content of his draft report - The judge suggested that, in light of the 2010 amendments to rule 53.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, counsel's practice of reviewing draft reports should stop and there should be full disclosure in writing of any changes to an expert's final report as a result of counsel's corrections, suggestions or clarifications to ensure transparency in the process and to ensure that the expert witness was neutral - The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The court concluded that the trial judge erred in holding that it was unacceptable for counsel to review and discuss the draft expert reports - The court rejected the trial judge's proclamation that the practice of consultation between counsel and expert witness to review draft reports had to end - However, the trial judge's error did not affect the outcome in this case - See paragraphs 33 to 66.

Evidence - Topic 7004.1

Opinion evidence - Expert evidence - General - Participation of counsel in preparation of expert opinion - The Ontario Court of Appeal stated that "... it would be bad policy to disturb the well-established practice of counsel meeting with expert witnesses to review draft reports. Just as lawyers and judges need the input of experts, so too do expert witnesses need the assistance of lawyers in framing their reports in a way that is comprehensible and responsive to the pertinent legal issues in a case. Consultation and collaboration between counsel and expert witnesses is essential to ensure that the expert witness understands the duties reflected by rule 4.1.01 and contained in the Form 53 acknowledgment of expert's duty. Reviewing a draft report enables counsel to ensure that the report (i) complies with the Rules of Civil Procedure and the rules of evidence, (ii) addresses and is restricted to the relevant issues and (iii) is written in a manner and style that is accessible and comprehensible. Counsel need to ensure that the expert witness understands matters such as the difference between the legal burden of proof and scientific certainty, the need to clarify the facts and assumptions underlying the expert's opinion, the need to confine the report to matters within the expert witness's area of expertise and the need to avoid usurping the court's function as the ultimate arbiter of the issues. Counsel play a crucial mediating role by explaining the legal issues to the expert witness and then by presenting complex expert evidence to the court. It is difficult to see how counsel could perform this role without engaging in communication with the expert as the report is being prepared" - See paragraphs 62 to 64.

Evidence - Topic 7004.1

Opinion evidence - Expert evidence - General - Participation of counsel in preparation of expert opinion - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that it was acceptable for counsel to review and discuss draft expert reports - The court discussed the extent to which consultations between counsel and expert witnesses and draft reports needed to be disclosed to an opposing party - The court stated that absent a factual foundation to support a reasonable suspicion that counsel improperly influenced the expert, a party should not be allowed to demand production of draft reports or notes of interactions between counsel and an expert witness - See paragraphs 67 to 78.

Evidence - Topic 7004.1

Opinion evidence - Expert evidence - General - Participation of counsel in preparation of expert opinion - In a medical malpractice suit, the trial judge ordered production of the drafts and notes from the defendant surgeon's expert - The judge noted that the surgeon's counsel and the expert had discussed the contents of the report in a conference call before the expert issued his final report - The surgeon was found liable - The surgeon appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred in ruling that there should be full disclosure in writing of any changes to an expert's final report - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that absent a factual foundation to support a reasonable suspicion that counsel improperly influenced the expert, a party should not be allowed to demand production of draft reports or notes of interactions between counsel and an expert witness - Evidence of an hour and a half conference call did not meet the threshold of constituting a factual foundation for an allegation of improper influence - Here, the trial judge erred in law by stating that all changes in the reports of expert witnesses should be routinely documented and disclosed - She should not have ordered the production of the expert's notes and drafts - However, the trial judge's error did not affect the outcome in this case - See paragraphs 67 to 78.

Evidence - Topic 7073

Opinion evidence - Reports by experts - Use of - The plaintiff sued an orthopedic surgeon for malpractice - The trial judge, preferring the plaintiff's expert evidence found a breach of the standard of care - The surgeon appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred in her use of the surgeon's expert witness reports - The reports were not entered into evidence, rather the parties called viva voce evidence from all expert witnesses - The judge had access to the reports as an "aide memoire" - In assessing the credibility of the surgeon's expert witnesses, the trial judge considered what she perceived to be contradictions between the experts' viva voce evidence and the written reports - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in using the written expert reports that were neither entered into evidence, nor the subject of cross-examination, to contradict and discredit aspects of the viva voce evidence of the surgeon's expert witnesses - However, the error did not affect the outcome - See paragraphs 79 to 87.

Evidence - Topic 7079

Opinion evidence - Reports by experts - Medical reports - [See all Evidence - Topic 7004.1 and Evidence - Topic 7073 ].

Cases Noticed:

Westerhof v. Gee Estate (2013), 310 O.A.C. 335; 2013 ONSC 2093 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Mohan, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9; 166 N.R. 245; 71 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Abbey (W.N.) (2009), 254 O.A.C. 9;; 246 C.C.c.(3d) 301; 2009 ONCA 624, refd to. [para. 33].

Maras v. Seemore Entertainment Ltd. et al., [2014] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1109; [2014] B.C.W.L.D. 4470; 2014 BCSC 1109, refd to. [para. 55].

Surrey Credit Union v. Wilson (1990), 45 B.C.L.R.(2d) 310 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 55].

Medimmune Ltd. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd. & Anor, [2011] EWHC 1669 (Pat.), refd to. [para. 55].

Alfano v. Piersanti et al. (2012), 291 O.A.C. 62; 2012 ONCA 297, refd to. [para. 61].

Blank v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [2006] 2 S.C.R. 319; 352 N.R. 201; 2006 SCC 39, refd to. [para. 68].

Browne v. Lavery et al., [2002] O.T.C. 109; 58 O.R.(3d) 49 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 72].

Aviaco International Leasing Inc. et al. v. Boeing Canada Inc. et al., [2002] O.T.C. 734, refd to. [para. 72].

Conceicao Farms Inc. et al. v. Zeneca Corp. et al. (2006), 214 O.A.C. 161; 83 O.R.(3d) 792 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

Mendlowitz v. Chaing, 2011 ONSC 2341, refd to. [para. 72].

Ebrahim et al. v. Continental Precious Minerals Inc. et al., [2012] O.T.C. Uned. 1123; 2012 ONSC 1123, refd to. [para. 77].

Khan v. College of Physicians and Surgeons (Ont.) (1992), 57 O.A.C. 115; 9 O.R.(3d) 641; 76 C.C.C.(3d) 110 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 117].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Civil Procedure (Ont.), rule 4.1.01 [para. 60]; rule 53.03 [para. 36].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Advocates' Society, Position Paper on Communication with Testifying Experts (June 2014), generally [para. 46].

Advocates' Society, Principles Governing Communications with Testifying Experts (June 2014), generally [para. 46]; principle 3 [para. 57].

Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario, Guideline: The Professional Engineer as an Expert Witness (September 2011), generally [para. 60].

Bryant, Alan W., Lederman, Sidney N., and Fuerst, Michelle K., Sopinka, Lederman & Bryant: The Law of Evidence in Canada (4th Ed. 2014), para. 6.299 [para. 88]; para. 6.300-6.301 [para. 91]; para. 14.220 [para. 75].

Canadian Institute of Actuaries, Actuarial Standards Board's Standards of Practice (October 2014), generally [para. 60].

Canadian Institute of Chartered Business Valuators, Code of Ethics (2012), Standard Nos. 110 and 310, [para. 60].

Goudge Report - see Ontario, Report of Inquiry into Pediatric Forensic Pathology in Ontario, Report: Policy and Recommendations.

Ontario, Report of Inquiry into Pediatric Forensic Pathology in Ontario, Report: Policy and Recommendations (Goudge Report), p. 47 [para. 54].

Ontario, Ministry of the Attorney General, Report from the Civil Justice Reform Project: Summary of Findings and Recommendations (2007) (Osborne Report), p. 71 [para. 37].

Osborne Report - see Ontario, Ministry of the Attorney General, Report from the Civil Justice Reform Project: Summary of Findings and Recommendations.

Counsel:

J. Thomas Curry and Jaan E. Lilles, for the appellant;

Paul J. Pape and Joanna Nairn, for the respondent;

Matthew Gourlay and Samuel Walker, for the intervener, Criminal Lawyers' Association;

Richard Halpern and Brian Cameron, for the intervener, Ontario Trial Lawyers Association;

William D. Black, Jerome R. Morse and John J. Morris, for the intervener, The Holland Group;

John A. Olah and Stephen Libin, for the intervener, Canadian Defence Lawyers Association;

Courtney Raphael, for the intervener, Canadian Institute of Chartered Business Valuators;

Linda R. Rothstein and Jean-Claude Killey, for the intervener, The Advocates' Society.

This appeal was heard on September 22-24 and 26, 2014, before Laskin, Sharpe and Simmons, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The following decision was delivered for the court by Sharpe, J.A., on January 29, 2015.

To continue reading

Request your trial
96 practice notes
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (July 3 - 7, 2023)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • July 12, 2023
    ...Appeal Book and Compendium, Evidence, Admissibility, Expert Evidence, Aides Memoire, Rules of Civil Procedure, r. 53.03, Moore v. Getahun, 2015 ONCA 55, 1162740 Ontario Ltd. v. Pingue, 2017 ONCA 52 Gu v. Nothdurft, 2023 ONCA 480 Keywords: Contracts, Real Property, Agreements of Purchase and......
  • COURT OF APPEAL SUMMARIES (July 3- July 7, 2023)
    • Canada
    • LexBlog Canada
    • July 9, 2023
    ...Appeal Book and Compendium, Evidence, Admissibility, Expert Evidence, Aides Memoire, Rules of Civil Procedure, r. 53.03, Moore v. Getahun, 2015 ONCA 55, 1162740 Ontario Ltd. v. Pingue, 2017 ONCA 52 Gu v. Nothdurft, 2023 ONCA 480 Keywords: Contracts, Real Property, Agreements of Purchase and......
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (April 18 - 22, 2022)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • April 26, 2022
    ...ONCA 188, R. v. T.A., 2015 ONCJ 624, R. v. Livingston, 2017 ONCJ 645, 356 C.C.C. (3d) 514, R. v. Tesfai, 2015 ONSC 7792, Moore v. Getahun, 2015 ONCA 55, leave to appeal to refused, [2015] S.C.C.A. No. 119 Mukwa v. Farm Credit of Canada , 2022 ONCA 320 Keywords: Civil Procedure, Abuse of Pro......
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Lawyer’s Guide to the Forensic Sciences
    • June 23, 2016
    ...279 (1987) ....................................................................................835 Moore v. Getahun, 2014 ONSC 237, aff’d 2015 ONCA 55 .......................................................689 National Justice Compania Naviera S.A. v. Prudential Assurance (The Ikarian Reefe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
45 cases
  • Raponi v. Olympia Trust Company,
    • Canada
    • Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
    • August 2, 2022
    ...244 at para. 27. [17] 2015 SCC 23 (S.C.C.); Wright v. Detour Gold Corp., 2016 ONSC 6807. [18] [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9. [19] Moore v. Getahun, 2015 ONCA 55, leave to appeal refused [2015] S.C.C.A. No. 119; Carmen Alfano Family Trust (Trustee of) v. Piersanti, 2012 ONCA 297, leave to appeal refused......
  • Rovi Guides, Inc. v. BCE Inc., 2022 FC 1388
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • October 24, 2022
    ...and incentivizing counsel to abandon rather than edit and improve badly drafted reports, causing added cost and delay: Moore v Getahun, 2015 ONCA 55 [Moore] at para 65. This Court has recognized that counsel may assist in the preparation of an expert report, and that counsel’s involv......
  • Barbe v Evans, 2020 ABQB 599
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • October 9, 2020
    ...that had been referred to by other experts, if it provides context and helps the court to understand the evidence: Moore v Getahun, 2015 ONCA 55 at para 92, leave to appeal refused, [2015] SCCA No [510] The Defendant argued that in the absence of cross-examination, Dr. Elhilali’s evidence i......
  • SCALA v. TORONTO POLICE SERVICES BOARD, 2019 ONSC 2239
    • Canada
    • Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
    • April 8, 2019
    ...area of expertise”: White Burgess, at para. 10; Westerhof v. Gee Estate, 2015 ONCA 206, 124 O.R. (3d) 721 at para. 35; Moore v. Getahun, 2015 ONCA 55, 124 O.R. (3d) 321. However, during the course of his cross-examination, Dr. Balkansky admitted that after he assessed Mr. Scala in March 201......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
40 firm's commentaries
  • COURT OF APPEAL SUMMARIES (July 3- July 7, 2023)
    • Canada
    • LexBlog Canada
    • July 9, 2023
    ...Appeal Book and Compendium, Evidence, Admissibility, Expert Evidence, Aides Memoire, Rules of Civil Procedure, r. 53.03, Moore v. Getahun, 2015 ONCA 55, 1162740 Ontario Ltd. v. Pingue, 2017 ONCA 52 Gu v. Nothdurft, 2023 ONCA 480 Keywords: Contracts, Real Property, Agreements of Purchase and......
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (April 18 - 22, 2022)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • April 26, 2022
    ...ONCA 188, R. v. T.A., 2015 ONCJ 624, R. v. Livingston, 2017 ONCJ 645, 356 C.C.C. (3d) 514, R. v. Tesfai, 2015 ONSC 7792, Moore v. Getahun, 2015 ONCA 55, leave to appeal to refused, [2015] S.C.C.A. No. 119 Mukwa v. Farm Credit of Canada , 2022 ONCA 320 Keywords: Civil Procedure, Abuse of Pro......
  • 2015 In Review: Top 10 Judicial Decisions Of Import To The Canadian Oil And Gas Industry
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • January 11, 2016
    ...SCC 24. 10 2015 SCC 3. 11 2015 ABCA 357. 12 2015 SCC 23. 13 See, for example, the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Moore v Getahun, 2015 ONCA 55 (found here) where that Court overturned a lower court decision which was highly critical of the practice of legal counsel to discuss draft rep......
  • Utilizing New Medical Technology In Today's Litigation
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • April 8, 2016
    ...43678 at para (ON SC). 20 [1931] S.C.R. 672 at 684. 21 Supra note 19 at 34. 22 2012 ONCJ 791 at para 53; supra note 4 at para 32. 23 2015 ONCA 55 [Moore]. 24 Ibid at para 63. 25 Supra note 7 atr 31.06(3). 26 Supra note 15 at para 86. 27 (2002) 58 OR (3d) 49 at para 51 (SCJ). 28 Supra note 1......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Lawyer’s Guide to the Forensic Sciences
    • June 23, 2016
    ...279 (1987) ....................................................................................835 Moore v. Getahun, 2014 ONSC 237, aff’d 2015 ONCA 55 .......................................................689 National Justice Compania Naviera S.A. v. Prudential Assurance (The Ikarian Reefe......
  • Forensic Psychiatry
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Lawyer’s Guide to the Forensic Sciences
    • June 23, 2016
    ...take to manage bias include having clear and detailed conversations with their clients about what to expect in the 65 Moore v. Getahun , 2015 ONCA 55 [ Moore ]. 66 Moore v. Getahun , 2014 ONSC 237. 67 Moore , above note 65 at para. 78. 68 See Carmen Alfano Family Trust (Trustee of) v. Persa......
  • The Expert's Report
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Expert Witnesses in Civil Litigation. A Practical Guide
    • June 21, 2017
    ...and assumptions presented to Dr L for opinion. his accords with, but predates, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruling in Moore v Getahun . 8 8 2015 ONCA 55 [ Moore ]. the expert’s report he decision references other caselaw. here is a suggestion that lawyers communicate with experts for a varie......
  • Legal Principles
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Expert Witnesses in Civil Litigation. A Practical Guide
    • June 21, 2017
    ...of guidance from counsel. Unfortunately, this has also led to the perception that experienced experts are “hired guns” whose opinion can 5 2015 ONCA 55 [ Moore ]. Motion for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was dismissed. legal principles be reliably predicted. Certain lawyers......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT