When will the judge refuse to allow the evidence to be presented to the jury?

The judge refused to allow the evidence to be presented to the jury. In his decision, he relied on the nature and impact of the evidence, not the standing or involvement of the witnesses: Surely, one of the important reasons for the rule change was to eliminate the practice of tendering opinion evidence of questionable value in a trial, particularly where, as is the case here, the evidence was created in another proceeding, at the instance of a party who is not before this court and to address matters that are beyond the scope of this trial. (Beasley v. Barrand, supra, at para. 62)

The judge determined that, in the circumstances, compliance with rule 53.03 was required: In my view, having considered all of the circumstances of this case, I think that the application of Rule 53.03 to the proposed evidence of the three experts is necessary... [Emphasis added] (Beasley v. Barrand, supra, at para. 62)

If the rule had been complied with, the evidence could have been helpful and admissible: I suggested that the defendants could invite the doctors, at the defendants’ expense, to write meaningful, Rule 53.03 compliant, reports to plaintiff’s counsel which, if relevant and producible, could help me to understand any opinions they might be able to express on issues between the parties before this court. That was not attempted. No request has been made for more time to redress the current situation. (Beasley v. Barrand, supra, at para. 68)