Law Times

Law Times • May 4, 2015 Page 5 www.lawtimesnews.com Expert witnesses Court offers guidance on qualification of government employees BY Yamri Taddese Law Times n a decision a lawyer says is "huge," an Ontario Court judge has found a govern- ment engineer may not tes- tify as an expert witness due to questions about his indepen- dence as an employee of the prosecutor. Justice Brent Knazan didn't doubt whether Saeed Khorsand, an employee of the Ministry of Labour, had sufficient qualifica- tions to give evidence. But Kna- zan found the engineer was "too involved" in the investigation of a drill-rig collapse accident at a construction site that resulted in one death and a serious injury. The judge also found Khorsand had behaved in a way that led him to believe he wouldn't be able to testify without concerns about his impartiality. "He has been too involved in the investigation leading up to the charges, the contacts with other witnesses and outside agencies and the unfolding of the trial after it began to provide a reliable objective opinion on a question that is so fundamental to the charges," wrote Knazan in his April 21 ruling in a case in- volving Advance Construction Techniques Ltd. Khorsand's conduct during the proceedings only added to the judge's doubts. For example, Khorsand left out some infor- mation about an abandoned water main from a report he had written for another engi- neer retained by the Ministry of Labour, the judge found. But on the day that engineer was to tes- tify, Khorsand told him about the water main and wondered if that would change his expert opinion. "But the combination of his intensive involvement in the in- vestigation and his too enthusias- tic following of the watermain is- sue in the middle of the trial lead me to conclude that Mr. Khor- sand could not give an unbiased opinion on the root causes of the collapse of the rig to assist this court," wrote Knazan. Counsel for the defendant in the case says the ruling has broader implications for gov- ernment departments that want to use their employees as expert witnesses. "It's huge. Many provincial government departments have in-house engineers or other technical people that they'd probably want to use as ex- perts, but this ruling puts a bit of a damper on that," says Norm Keith, a partner at Fasken Mar- tineau DuMoulin LLP. "In this case, the Ministry of Labour engineer is not allowed to be an investigator or a fact finder and also put on a differ- ent hat and be an independent, impartial engineering expert," he adds. The judge, however, was clear the court couldn't disqualify an expert only on the basis that the person works for the same employer as the prosecutor. In this case, Khorsand wasn't just an employee of the investigat- ing body as in the situation of a police officer who's an expert on drug deals, the judge said. "He was in constant contact with the informant and lead in- vestigator Mr. Duncan through- out the investigation. Mr. Dun- can could not interpret the evi- dence without the assistance of Mr. Khorsand," wrote Knazan. "This puts him in a different position from an expert em- ployed by either a ministry de- partment or a police force who is asked for their opinion on a hypothetical fact situation that happens to correspond to the facts in the case. "There is a reason why those witnesses are often asked as part of their qualifications if they have any contact with the case or had any knowledge of the case before being presented with the hypothetical." Keith says the judge did a thorough analysis in the case and made the right decision. "I think the fact that there's more caution being prescribed by the court before they let somebody be qualified as an expert is a good thing. I think it's going to enhance the reli- ability of the evidence going in front of the court," he says. "And I think it's going to reduce the appearance that employees are just giving evidence to please their employers." Thomson Rogers part- ner David Germain, whose practice largely involves ap- pearing before the Ontario Municipal Board, says it's common for municipalities to use their own employees as expert witnesses in pro- ceedings. "Almost in every case, I'd say the municipality will have an in-house planner who will give evidence on behalf of the municipality at the hearing," says Germain. "Sometimes, they go and retain somebody else to do that kind of thing but often, as a matter of course, the in-house experts will be qualified." Knazan's decision "doesn't question that practice," ac- cording to Germain. "The decision makes it quite clear that just because the engi- neer in question was employed by the Ministry of Labour, that act in and of itself doesn't di- minish his ability to qualify as an expert," he says. To Germain, the disqualifier in this case wasn't Khorsand's deep involvement but the way he conducted himself. "This decision is, I'd say, pretty fact-specific, turning on the specific conduct of that expert at trial," he says. In his decision, Knazan found he didn't need to de- cide whether Khorsand's deep involvement alone could disqualify him. "That is because his iden- tification with the prosecu- tion did not stop with the commencement of the trial," wrote Knazan. "Even if his relation to the investigation does not amount to a lack of indepen- dence such as to make his opinion unreliable, events at the trial demonstrate con- clusively that Dr. Khorsand identifies too closely with the prosecution to be able give an impartial opinion. As counsel for the ministry so stressed, a voir dire to determine exper- tise is fact specific." The law around the inde- pendence of expert witnesses is a constantly evolving one. Ac- cording to Germain, the case doesn't establish "a bright line" of when experts' conduct would render them impartial but it does provide an example lawyers would want to learn from. LT NEWS Get expert insight on the legislation and case law impacting roads, streets, and highways. This classic resource offers a practical approach to 41 key road principles in Ontario. For each principle, you'll find a concise explanation, historical background, most recent cases and a review of the Municipal Act, 2001. New in this edition • Eight new road principles – Private Access Roads – "Seasonally Maintained" Roads – Road Easements: The 40 Year Shelf Life under the Registry Act – Letters of Credit: Municipal Services – "Improved Roads" Surveys – Public Lands Act: Roads Under – Local Roads Boards: Roads Administered By – Road Allowances: Mistakes When Opening • Two new chapters • References to new legislation • Recent judicial decisions Turn to Russell on Roads, 3rd Edition, and you'll understand the issues, prepare for the problems, get immediate access to the case law, and make sense of it all with clear commentary. Faced with a road problem in Ontario? New Edition Russell on Roads, 3rd Edition W.D. (Rusty) Russell, Q.C. Order # 986453-65203 $106 Softcover approx. 450 pages May 2015 978-0-7798-6453-9 Shipping and handling are extra. Price(s) subject to change without notice and subject to applicable taxes. 00227AS-A47721 Available risk-free for 30 days Order online: www.carswell.com Call Toll-Free: 1-800-387-5164 In Toronto: 416-609-3800 I 'I think the fact that there's more caution being prescribed by the court before they let somebody be qualified as an expert is a good thing,' says Norm Keith. encourages readers to send us letters, but will edit them for space, taste, and libel consideration. Please provide your name, address and contact number and send all letters to: L Law Times, 2075 Kennedy Rd. Toronto, ON • M1T 3V4 E-mail: glenn.kauth@thomsonreuters.com

• Cover