Canadian Lawyer

w w w . C A N A D I A N L a w y e r m a g . c o m A P R I L 2 0 1 6 3 n the July 2011 issue of Canadian Lawyer, we wrote about "hot tubbing" — the term was coined in Australia to describe the procedure of organizing all experts in a case into a panel and hearing their evidence concurrently. As the story reported, judges and many experts liked the idea of it but the jury was still out with the lawyers. In Canada, there is some usage of expert "panels" in tribunals and other administrative law bodies, where there is often very technical and complex evidence and the triers of fact most certainly don't have the necessary levels of knowledge or expertise to weigh the value of one expert against another. Thus, it makes perfect sense for all sides to agree on experts and have them testify in a more collaborative way. This is definitely not what happens with medico-legal expert witnesses in the auto insurance industry — at least not in Ontario. What has been going on in that province for years now has been a system that increasingly doesn't work for individuals seeking accident benefits, and it is tipped in favour of insurance com- panies looking to reduce payouts whenever they can. According to this month's personal injury legal report (see page 38), there are numerous decisions showing medical experts are not acting as impartially as they should. Personal injury lawyer Loretta Merritt notes that even though a 2014 review of the alternative dispute resolution system by Justice Douglas Cunningham did not have the review of independent medical experts within its mandate, the judge was compelled to note that many stakeholders he spoke to brought up the issue of skewed experts: Essentially, if you were an expert who supported claimants, you'd never again be retained by insurance companies. In other words, anyone who earns any part of his or her living as an expert could not be relied on to give an unbiased assessment, say lawyers from the personal injury bar. As a result, the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association, which represents many of those defence coun- sel, has called for an inquiry into the system of expert witnesses. There are claims that a system of medico-legal experts distorts evidence, including court reports, to satisfy insurance companies. There is also the issue of assessment clinics allegedly changing reports sent to them by doctors, who are often shocked when they see those altered reports if and when they do testify in court. And while some lawyers say there have been some improvements in the last few years with some rule changes, the playing field between insurance companies and those they insure is wholly uneven. Maybe hot tubbing is the way to go with personal injury claims. Have the expert reports prepared by a panel of approved medico-legal practitioners who are approved by both sides. You'll need fewer experts, which will save all sides money and definitely make it easier in terms of the time demanded of claimants to attend medical evaluations. Perhaps an inquiry is in order, but what is clear is that the system is broken — in Ontario at least — and changes have to be made to bring fairness back into a process that affects many members of the public every year. E D I T O R ' S D E S K @canlawmag gail.cohen@tr.com The great divide By Gail J. Cohen Director/Group Publisher: Karen Lorimer karen.lorimer@tr.com Editor in Chief: Gail J. Cohen gail.cohen@tr.com Staff Writer: Yamri Taddese yamri.taddese@tr.com Copy Editor: Patricia Cancilla Art Director: Bill Hunter Production Co-ordinator: Sharlane Burgess sharlane.burgess@tr.com Contributors: Jean Sorensen, donalee Moulton, Pascal Elie, Geoff Ellwand, Marg. Bruineman, Jim Middlemiss, Jennifer Brown, Kirk Makin, Canadian Lawyer is published 11 times a year by Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd. All rights reserved. Contents may not be reprinted without written permission. The opinions expressed in articles are not necessarily those of the publisher. Information presented is compiled from sources believed to be accurate, however, the publisher assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions. Canadian Lawyer disclaims any warranty as to the accuracy, completeness or currency of the contents of this publication and disclaims all liability in respect of the results of any action taken or not taken in reliance upon information in this publication. Advertising Sales Representatives Joseph Galea Tel: (416) 649-9919 E-mail: joseph.galea@tr.com Steffanie Munroe Tel: 416-298-5077 E-mail: steffanie.munroe@tr.com Kimberlee Pascoe Tel: (416) 649-8875 E-mail: kimberlee.pascoe@tr.com Grace So Tel: (416) 609-5838 E-mail: grace.so@tr.com Canadian Lawyer Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd. One Corporate Plaza, 2075 Kennedy Rd., Toronto, ON. M1T 3V4 Tel: (416) 298-5141 Fax: (416) 649-7870 E-mail: cl.editor@tr.com Web: www.canadianlawyermag.com Linkedin: linkd.in/179bx8t Twitter: @canlawmag Publications Mail Agreement #40766500 ISSN 0703-2129 © 2016 HST Registration #R121349799 RETURN UNDELIVERABLE CANADIAN ADDRESS TO: CIRCULATION DEPARTMENT One Corporate Plaza 2075 Kennedy RD., Toronto, ON. M1T 3V4 RETOURNER TOUTE CORRESPONDANCE NE POUVANT ÊTRE LIVRÉE AU CANADA AU SERVICE DES PUBLICATIONS One Corporate Plaza, 2075 Kennedy Rd., Toronto, ON. M1T 3V4 Circulation/Address Changes/ Subscriptions Keith Fulford Tel: (416) 649-9585 Fax: (416) 649-7870 E-mail: keith.fulford@tr.com Subscription rates: Canada1 year print and digital $99 plus HST, 1 year digital only $99. Outside Canada 1 year print & digital $99 USD, 1 year digital only $99. For all circulation inquiries and address changes send a copy of your mailing label or labels along with your request in writing to Canadian Lawyer, One Corporate Plaza, 2075 Kennedy Rd., Toronto, ON. M1T 3V4 Indexed in the Canadian Periodical Index I

• Cover