Expert Evidence Clause Samples

Expert Evidence. 14.1 The PC may determine the necessity of retaining professionals to provide expert opinions on any issue and shall direct the parents accordingly. 14.2 The PC may obtain independent legal advice to assist in the determination of legal issues. The parents shall be provided with copies any legal opinions obtained. 14.3 The cost of all such experts shall be paid equally by the parents, subject to reapportionment by the PC. 14.4 The PC may, in their discretion and at their own cost, consult with other professionals for procedural advice.

Expert Evidence. 8.3.1 The PC has the authority to determine the necessity of retaining professional(s) to provide expert opinions respecting any outstanding issue(s) and to direct the parents accordingly. 8.3.2 If Arbitration takes place and issues of law arise, in the PC’s sole discretion, the PC is authorized to obtain independent legal advice to assist her in the determination of those issues. The parents shall have access to any representations or opinions provided by such counsel. The cost of such counsel shall initially be borne by the parents equally, subject to reapportionment by the PC.

Expert Evidence. The parties agree that if an arbitration takes place and issues of law arise, then in her sole discretion, ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ may obtain independent legal advice to assist her in the determination of those issues. The parties will have access to any representations or opinions provided by such counsel. The cost of such counsel shall initially be borne by the parties equally subject to reapportionment by the Arbitrator. The parties specifically give the Arbitrator the authority to determine the necessity of retaining professional(s) to provide expert opinions respecting any outstanding issue(s) and to direct the parties accordingly. The parties agree to contribute to the expert(s)’ fees in the proportion determined by the Arbitrator.

Expert Evidence. No expert evidence shall be adduced in the arbitration without the Arbitrator’s permission.

Expert Evidence. 11.1. The parties authorize the Arbitrator to determine the necessity of retaining professional(s) to provide expert opinion(s) respecting any outstanding issues(s) and to retain such professional(s) as the Arbitrator deems appropriate. 11.2. The parties agree to pay the fees of the expert(s) in the amounts or proportions determined by the Arbitrator and authorize the Arbitrator to include these fees as a disbursement on the Arbitrator’s account.

Expert Evidence. The parties specifically give the PC the authority to determine the necessity of retaining professional(s) to provide expert opinions respecting any outstanding issue(s) and to direct the parties accordingly. The parties agree that if arbitration is sought by either party or takes places and issues of law arise, then, in his sole discretion, ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, MSW, RSW may obtain independent legal advice to assist his in the determination of those issues. The parties shall have access to any representations or opinions provided by such counsel. The cost of such counsel shall initially be borne by the parties equally subject to reapportionment by the Parenting Coordinator.

Expert Evidence. [173] ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ in her Affidavit in support of the Application sought leave at paragraph 37 to rely on a report prepared by Mr. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (“the ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Report”), on the proposal of the Government to compensate CLICO’s EFPA policyholders. She further stated that ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ prepared his report in conformity with PART 33.10 of the CPR. [174] The Intended Respondent objected to the ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Report on the ground that it is inadmissible because it is an expert report which was prepared at the request of the Intended Applicants and that no leave was sought to admit same. ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ also pointed out that the Intended Applicants by Paragraph 37 of ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ affidavit have sought leave to admit the said report but that such leave should be refused. [175] He submitted firstly that leave should be refused on the ground that the Intended Applicants have not complied with PART 3394 of the CPR. PART 33.495 of the CPR provides that expert evidence must be restricted to that which is reasonably required to resolve the proceedings justly. He contended that the ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Report seeks to usurp the court’s function as decision-maker by giving an opinion on the merits of the decision to be reviewed. 93 VM52 94 Experts and Assessors 95 Expert evidence must be restricted to that which is reasonably required to resolve the proceedings justly. [176] In support of this contention, ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ relied on the case of R (▇▇▇▇▇) v General Dental Council96, where ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ J opined: [177] He further argued that the ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Report does not explain a technical process or procedure, instead it provides answers to leading questions posed to the author by the Intended Applicants’ Attorneys-at-Law on the merits of the Government’s policy with regard to the issuance of bonds to policyholders. [178] Further, ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ contended that the ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Report contains the opinions of the author which are irrelevant to the issues which the Court must determine for Leave for Judicial Review. He again noted the words of ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. in the foregoing case that: “It will be virtually impossible to justify the submission of expert evidence which goes beyond the explanation of technical terms, since it will almost inevitably involve an attempt to challenge the factual conclusions and judgments of an expert. That is something which is inappropriate for a reviewing court.”97 [179] He also drew the Court’s attention to the local decision of Digicel (Trinidad & Tobago) Limited v Macmillan & Others98, where ▇▇...

Expert Evidence. The parties called a total of six witnesses as experts. The individuals called by the Union were, in order: 2018 CanLII 116964 (BC LA)