person's specialised knowledge, acquired through training, study or experience. The Court stated that the application of section 79 to opinion evidence contained in an affidavit depended upon: whether the deponent had specialised knowledge based on his  training, study or experience; and whether the evidence was evidence of an opinion of the  deponent that was wholly or substantially based on that knowledge. The Court first examined the meaning of 'specialised knowledge'. The Court noted that the concept of specialised knowledge is not restrictive; it encompasses knowledge formally acquired through training or study, as well as knowledge based on experience. It is more than the observations of a non-participating onlooker. Specialised knowledge requires there to be a sufficiently organised or recognised body of knowledge, accepted as a reliable body of knowledge or experience. The Court stated that there also needs to be a general standard of professional diligence or competence that can be applied. The Court then examined the issue of determining whether an expert's opinion is wholly or substantially based on specialised knowledge. In examining this issue, the Court concluded the following: a professional may give evidence about the content of general  practices of professionals in his or her field; a professional can go beyond the content of general practices, by  expressing an opinion about the practice of competent and careful professionals in specified circumstances which are recurring or typical; a professional can give evidence of what, in precisely stated  circumstances which are out of the ordinary, a competent and careful professional would be expected to do; expert evidence directed to answering a question of law or fact  that is directly before the Court is inadmissible; evidence of an expert as to what he or she would do in the  stated circumstances is inadmissible; the expert must demonstrate how his or her specialised  knowledge applies to the assumed or proven facts; so far as the opinion is based on facts observed or assumed by  the expert, such facts must be identified and proved; the Court must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that  the opinion is wholly or substantially based on the expert's knowledge; and
person's specialised knowledge, acquired through training, study or experience. The Court stated that the application of section 79 to opinion evidence contained in an affidavit depended upon:  whether the deponent had specialised knowledge based on his training, study or experience; and  whether the evidence was evidence of an opinion of the deponent that was wholly or substantially based on that knowledge. The Court first examined the meaning of 'specialised knowledge'. The Court noted that the concept of specialised knowledge is not restrictive; it encompasses knowledge formally acquired through training or study, as well as knowledge based on experience. It is more than the observations of a non-participating onlooker. Specialised knowledge requires there to be a sufficiently organised or recognised body of knowledge, accepted as a reliable body of knowledge or experience. The Court stated that there also needs to be a general standard of professional diligence or competence that can be applied. The Court then examined the issue of determining whether an expert's opinion is wholly or substantially based on specialised knowledge. In examining this issue, the Court concluded the following:  a professional may give evidence about the content of general practices of professionals in his or her field;  a professional can go beyond the content of general practices, by expressing an opinion about the practice of competent and careful professionals in specified circumstances which are recurring or typical;  a professional can give evidence of what, in precisely stated circumstances which are out of the ordinary, a competent and careful professional would be expected to do;  expert evidence directed to answering a question of law or fact that is directly before the Court is inadmissible;  evidence of an expert as to what he or she would do in the stated circumstances is inadmissible;  the expert must demonstrate how his or her specialised knowledge applies to the assumed or proven facts;  so far as the opinion is based on facts observed or assumed by the expert, such facts must be identified and proved;  the Court must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the opinion is wholly or substantially based on the expert's knowledge; and
CORPORATE-LAW-ELECTRONIC-BULLETIN-December-2003.docx