回到伯吉斯:怀特伯吉斯专家证据制度在艾伯塔省决策中的影响

IF 0.3 Q3 LAW ALBERTA LAW REVIEW Pub Date : 2019-10-02 DOI:10.29173/alr2562
Lisa A. Silver
{"title":"回到伯吉斯:怀特伯吉斯专家证据制度在艾伯塔省决策中的影响","authors":"Lisa A. Silver","doi":"10.29173/alr2562","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The law on the admissibility of expert evidence was refined in the Supreme Court of Canada’s White Burgess decision. While still retaining the Mohan criteria, the Supreme Court further defined the trial judge as an agent of change through an enhanced gatekeeper function. However, all stakeholders in the justice system have a gatekeeper function and must work together when determining the use to be made of evidence. Through surveying Alberta cases involving expert evidence, the author identifies areas where lower courts are applying the new approach and where they do not fully embrace the new approach, but revert back to the traditional Mohan criteria. The author discusses notable themes from recent case law to identify potential future issues involving expert evidence. Although slowly, Alberta courts are applying the new regime, and the focus and direction of expert evidence continue to develop.","PeriodicalId":54047,"journal":{"name":"ALBERTA LAW REVIEW","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Back to Burgess: The Impact of the White Burgess Expert Evidence Regime in Alberta Decisions\",\"authors\":\"Lisa A. Silver\",\"doi\":\"10.29173/alr2562\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The law on the admissibility of expert evidence was refined in the Supreme Court of Canada’s White Burgess decision. While still retaining the Mohan criteria, the Supreme Court further defined the trial judge as an agent of change through an enhanced gatekeeper function. However, all stakeholders in the justice system have a gatekeeper function and must work together when determining the use to be made of evidence. Through surveying Alberta cases involving expert evidence, the author identifies areas where lower courts are applying the new approach and where they do not fully embrace the new approach, but revert back to the traditional Mohan criteria. The author discusses notable themes from recent case law to identify potential future issues involving expert evidence. Although slowly, Alberta courts are applying the new regime, and the focus and direction of expert evidence continue to develop.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54047,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ALBERTA LAW REVIEW\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-10-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ALBERTA LAW REVIEW\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.29173/alr2562\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ALBERTA LAW REVIEW","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29173/alr2562","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

关于专家证据可采性的法律在加拿大最高法院怀特伯吉斯案的判决中得到了完善。在保留莫汉标准的同时,最高法院进一步将初审法官定义为通过增强的看门人功能来推动变革的代理人。然而,司法系统中的所有利益攸关方都有看门人的职能,在确定证据的使用时必须共同努力。通过调查艾伯塔省涉及专家证据的案件,作者确定了下级法院正在应用新方法的领域,以及他们没有完全接受新方法的领域,而是回归到传统的莫汉标准。作者从最近的判例法中讨论了值得注意的主题,以确定涉及专家证据的潜在未来问题。虽然进展缓慢,但阿尔伯塔法院正在应用新制度,专家证据的重点和方向也在继续发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Back to Burgess: The Impact of the White Burgess Expert Evidence Regime in Alberta Decisions
The law on the admissibility of expert evidence was refined in the Supreme Court of Canada’s White Burgess decision. While still retaining the Mohan criteria, the Supreme Court further defined the trial judge as an agent of change through an enhanced gatekeeper function. However, all stakeholders in the justice system have a gatekeeper function and must work together when determining the use to be made of evidence. Through surveying Alberta cases involving expert evidence, the author identifies areas where lower courts are applying the new approach and where they do not fully embrace the new approach, but revert back to the traditional Mohan criteria. The author discusses notable themes from recent case law to identify potential future issues involving expert evidence. Although slowly, Alberta courts are applying the new regime, and the focus and direction of expert evidence continue to develop.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
20.00%
发文量
2
期刊最新文献
Canadian Challenges in Implementing the Kyoto Protocol: A Cause for Harmonization Principles of Kyoto and Emissions Trading Systems: A Primer for Energy Lawyers Fundamental Aspects of Oil and Gas Revisited Coalbed Methane: Conventional Rules for an Unconventional Resource Recent Regulatory and Legislative Developments of Interest to Oil and Gas Lawyers
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1