Log in R. v. Abbey
- 2009 ONCA 624
- Go to CanLII for full text
- 2010 CanLII 37826 (SCC)
- Go to CanLII for full text
- 2017 ONCA 640
- Go to CanLII for full text
The above case is referenced within:
-
Civil Appeal Handbook
(Current to: February 01 2025)
-
Chapter 2. Standards of Review
- VIII. Standard of Review Analysis: Specific Cases [§2.8]
-
Chapter 2. Standards of Review
-
Expert Evidence in British Columbia Civil Proceedings
(Current to: June 01 2025)
-
Chapter 1. Expert Evidence in the Context of the Law of Evidence at Large
-
II. Opinion Evidence at Trial [§1.7]
-
C. When Opinion Evidence Is Allowed [§1.10]
- 2. Expert Opinion [§1.12]
-
C. When Opinion Evidence Is Allowed [§1.10]
-
III. Admissibility of Expert Evidence [§1.15]
- A. White Burgess Two-Stage Test [§1.16]
- B. Stage One: The Four-Part Mohan Test [§1.17]
- 1. Evidence Must Be Relevant [§1.18]
- 3. Does Another Rule of Evidence Exclude the Expert Opinion? [§1.20]
- 4. Expert Must Be Properly Qualified [§1.25]
- C. Stage Two: Discretionary Gatekeeping [§1.26]
- VII. Expert Evidence and Procedural Reform [§1.38]
-
II. Opinion Evidence at Trial [§1.7]
- Chapter 2. What Is an Expert?
-
Chapter 4. Expert Opinions and Ethical and Professional Responsibility Issues
- III. Specific Ethical and Professional Responsibility Issues [§4.5]
-
Chapter 7. Calling Expert Evidence
-
III. Calling the Expert Witness at Trial [§7.3]
- A. Qualifying the Witness as an Expert [§7.4]
-
III. Calling the Expert Witness at Trial [§7.3]
-
Chapter 8. Attacking Expert Evidence
- II. Challenging Expert Evidence on Threshold Issues [§8.2]
- III. Challenging the Expert’s Qualifications [§8.7]
-
VI. Challenging Expert Evidence through Other Avenues of Attack [§8.20]
- B. Challenging Assumptions in the Opinion [§8.29]
-
Chapter 1. Expert Evidence in the Context of the Law of Evidence at Large