286 THE ADVOCATE
VOL. 76 PART 2 MARCH 2018
and Privilege”,82 quoting his statement that “the problem that has developed
with opinion evidence generally is that experts have been encouraged
by lawyers, and permitted by judges, to go far beyond the proper scope of
opinion evidence. The experts have become advocates.” The Law Society’s
PLTC Practice Material: Civil lists this article among “helpful” sources on the
topic of expert witnesses.83
An earlier article, this time from 1978 and by D. Barry Kirkham, Q.C.,
called “Experts’ Statements Pursuant to the B.C. Evidence Act”,84 was cited by
the B.C. Supreme Court in Haida Inn Partnership v. Touche Ross & Co.85
OTHER EVIDENTIARY MATTERS
Master Murray Blok’s 2003 article, “An Update on the Law Governing
Hearsay: Part I”86 was cited in McKnight v. Hutchison.87 His earlier “The
Changed Law of Hearsay Evidence (Or, ‘Hearsay Today, Gone Tomorrow’)”
88 was cited in dissent, at the Supreme Court of Canada, in R. v.
APPEAL AND JUDICIAL REVIEW
The leading B.C. Court of Appeal decision on leave to appeal from decisions
of statutory tribunals, Queens Plate Dev. Ltd. v. Vancouver Assessor, Area 09,90
described as a “very useful article” Patrick G. Foy’s “Leave to Appeal: Civil
Cases in the British Columbia Court of Appeal”.91 Mr. Justice Taggart in that
case set out a list of matters to which a justice may have regard based in part
on that article.
Sitting in chambers in Jennings Estate v. Gibson,92 Mr. Justice Seaton characterized
as “helpful” the 1992 article by Madam Justice Proudfoot and
Tracey M. Cohen (now Q.C.), “Stay of Proceedings at the Court of Appeal”.93
Also in chambers, Mr. Justice Finch cited John Douglas Shields’s 1992 article,
“The First Time Didn’t Count: Appeals to the Supreme Court from Decisions
of Masters”,94 in White v. International Sources Ltd.95
On the question of who should hear an application for fresh evidence, Mr.
Justice Hinds referred in Gudaitis v. Abacus Systems Inc.96 to a “useful memorandum”
in the Advocate,97 in which comments made during a recent hearing
had been set out.
Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada have turned to the Advocate for
discussion of standards of review, both on appeal and in the administrative
context. (Now) Judge Thomas Woods’ 1998 article, “Overturning Findings of
Fact on Appeal: A Justifiably Narrow Jurisdiction”,98 was cited in St-Jean v.
Mercier,99 while Mr. Justice LeBel cited Deborah K. Lovett’s 1997 article,
“That Curious Curial Deference Just Gets Curiouser and Curiouser: Canada