Court cited vocational assessments in personal injury cases and upheld their family law relevance
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that vocational assessments are admissible expert evidence in family law cases, applying the legal framework from established case law to confirm their relevance in determining employability for support purposes.
The decision applied the principles set out in White Burgess Langille Inman v. Abbott and Haliburton Co. and R. v. Mohan, establishing the expert evidence threshold.
The court reiterated that expert evidence is a form of hearsay, as it is based on reported information rather than firsthand observations. Hearsay is generally inadmissible unless a legal exception applies. Under the White Burgess decision, expert testimony must meet four threshold requirements: relevance, necessity, absence of an exclusionary rule, and proper qualification of the expert. Judges serve as "gatekeepers" in this process, ensuring that expert evidence is reliable and beneficial to the trial process.
The case involved whether a vocational expert could provide an opinion on an individual's employability to determine income imputation in a family law matter. The Superior Court found that vocational assessments are directly relevant to the issue, as they assist in determining a party's ability to earn income. The court deemed expert assistance necessary since vocational expertise extends beyond general knowledge and found no exclusionary rule preventing the admission of such evidence.
The decision referenced prior case law recognizing vocational assessments in personal injury litigation and concluded that there was no reason to distinguish their relevance in family law. The court noted that a previous temporary order had already contemplated using vocational assessments for both parties.
The final issue was whether the proposed expert met the necessary qualifications. The court assessed the expert's impartiality, credentials, and experience. In testimony during the voir dire, the expert affirmed that the findings in the report were based on an objective assessment rather than advocacy for one party. The expert held professional certification and had substantial experience conducting vocational assessments. While this was the expert's first time testifying in court, the court confirmed that a lack of prior testimony does not disqualify an expert from providing evidence.
The court addressed concerns about the factual basis of the expert's conclusions, particularly regarding the level of personal knowledge obtained about the individual being assessed. The court clarified that these concerns could be explored through cross-examination but did not impact the expert's overall qualification to provide an opinion.
The court ultimately admitted the vocational expert's testimony, affirming vocational assessments as a reliable method for determining employability and income imputation in family law cases.
