How have competing experts been treated in the context of a jury trial?

Alberta, Canada


The following excerpt is from Nichiporuk v. McVean, 2005 ABQB 647 (CanLII):

Justice Rooke’s comments in Smith v. Williams, [2003] A.J. No. 1508 are relevant with respect to competing experts. He states at paragraph 6 that: . . . the point that I wish to make is that where there is a serious conflict among the experts that elevates the complexity to a level that makes adjudication inconvenient for a jury, a jury should not be put in a position of having to determine which expert is correct, because they do not indeed have the ability to do so. That is in this context that I said "that’s not the jury's role ...". (Underlining added)

Other Questions


How has the court treated a request for additional evidence in the context of the trial? (Alberta, Canada)
Is there any case law where a trial judge made a finding of fact based on a synthesis of ordinary and expert evidence? (Alberta, Canada)
How have decisions by the Chief Commissioner of Human Rights and Human Rights have been treated in the context of discrimination cases? (Alberta, Canada)
How have courts considered the need for up to 26 expert witnesses at trial? (Alberta, Canada)
Is there a "battle of the experts" between the experts"? (Alberta, Canada)
How have the courts in Canada and the United States treated the US in the context of a federal government report on taxes? (Alberta, Canada)
What constitutes “non-expert opinion evidence” in identification evidence at trial? (Alberta, Canada)
How have courts treated the word "crook" in the context of slanderous statements? (Alberta, Canada)
What is the test for the credibility of expert testimony in the context of Factortame? (Alberta, Canada)
What is the cost of retaining an expert who was not called at trial? (Alberta, Canada)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.