Is a reply report admissible as responsive evidence?
British Columbia, Canada
The following excerpt is from Godfrey v. Black, 2011 BCSC 1924 (CanLII):
In C.N. Railway v. H.M.T.Q. in Right of Canada, 2002 BCSC 1669, Henderson J. considered the admissibility of “reply reports” holding that only the portions of the reports that provided a critical analysis of the methodology of the opposing expert were admissible as responsive evidence. The portions of the reports describing the authors’ own opinions on the matters in issue were not admitted.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
What summary of evidence is admissible as evidence in an extradition hearing? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is hearsay evidence admissible in a report? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is Sur-reply permitted where a new issue or evidence has been raised in a reply? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the response of the BCCA to their objection to the admissibility of the referenced reports? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for producing and tender all relevant evidence in proper reply evidence? (British Columbia, Canada)
Can the requirement to deliver an expert report within 84 days (or a response report in 42 days) be dispensed with? (British Columbia, Canada)
Can an applicant and respondent at a summary trial rely on expert reports, examinations for discovery, interrogatories, use of admissions, and expert reports? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for admissibility of expert reports containing hearsay evidence? (British Columbia, Canada)
Can an expert's report be considered "truly responsive" evidence? (British Columbia, Canada)
Does Respondent evidence fail to qualify as responsive? (British Columbia, Canada)
