Irving Mitchell Kalichman s.e.n.c.r.l.
L'objectif de l'expertise est d'assister le tribunaux dans sa recherche de la vérité et de la solution conforme à la règle de droit. Reste que l'expertise est régie par certaines règles, certes peu nombreuses, mais quand même importantes. Un de ces impératifs est que l'expertise ai été préparée pour les fins du litige comme le souligne l'Honorable juge Louis Lacoursière dans Kleinman c. Pope (2012 QCCS 2951).
Dans cette affaire, les Demandeurs s'objectent au dépôt, par la Défenderesse, de trois documents à titre d'expertise au motif que ceux-ci n'ont pas été préparés pour les fins du litige et qu'ils ne sont donc pas de véritables expertises.
Le juge Lacoursière est d'accord avec cette position et il déclare conséquemment que les documents ne peuvent être produits à titre d'expertise:
[8] Through their motion, the Petitioners seek to have said exhibits, which have not been filed pursuant to Article 402.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure ("CCP"), declared inadmissible as expert reports and excluded from the Court record. They want the authors of said documents not be permitted to provide Expert testimony at the hearing scheduled for November 19 to November 21, 2012.
[9] The Petitioners argue essentially that Exhibits D-1, D-2 and D-3 were not prepared as expert reports in view of the proceedings and, moreover, are not relevant.
[10] The Defendant argues that Exhibits D-1, D-2 and D-3 are essential to determining what is at the heart of this litigation, i.e. the Testatrix's ability to make a will and that the issue of the relevancy of these documents is better left to the judge who will hear the case on the merits.
[11] All three documents seem, prima facie, to have been prepared in the general context of the care provided to Beatrice Medicoff. All are posterior to the Impeached Will. One, Exhibit D-1, is not signed.
[12] Obviously, they have not been prepared "pour les fins du litige". As such, these documents do not qualify as expert reports per se.
Le juge Lacoursière ajoute cependant qu'il est trop tôt pour conclure que les documents ne sont pas pertinents. Il refuse donc de les exclure complètement de la preuve, puisque ces documents pourraient être produits comme pièces ordinaires.
Le texte intégral du jugement est disponible ici: http://bit.ly/NcVhVk
Référence neutre: [2012] ABD 227
interesting, yet how could a document be prepared for the litigation, if the person that made the will has already passed away. does that mean that Defendant may never present an experts report in this case
RépondreEffacerIt doesn't. Nothing prevents an expert from preparing a report now using the documents that were created previously. Thus, for example, nothing would preclude a doctor from looking at D-1, D-2 and D-3 to prepare a report now giving his opinion on the ability of a given person to sign a will at a given date.
RépondreEffacerWhat you can't do is simply file D-1, D-2 and D-3 and call them expert reports when they were never intended to be.
Hope that helps.
Regards,
Karim
Me Renno,
RépondreEffacerJust a heads up to let you know that this decesion has been appealed. Let me know (by responding to this message) if you would like more info
Keep up the great work
Thank you very much for the information. Please report back once you have gotten a judgment as I'm sure it will be of great interest to all of the readers of this blog.
RépondreEffacerRegards,
KR