Mathias v. Canada
T-1636-81 / T-3150-92 / T-956-93
Simpson J.
13/3/98
19 pp.
Admissibility-Crown contesting admissibility of two expert reports filed under R. 482(1) on behalf of Squamish Indian Band-First report authored by Thomas R. Berger (Berger Report), second report written by Dr. Victor Satzewich-Mr. Berger, acknowledged expert in field of native law, asked to provide opinion about advice reasonably diligent Indian would have received from competent lawyer in respect of two specific issues-Most recent expression of test governing admissibility of expert evidence found in R. v. Mohan, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9-Admission of expert evidence depends on application of following criteria: relevance, necessity in assisting trier of fact, absence of exclusionary rule, properly qualified expert-Berger Report consisting in large measure of legal argument, will not assist Court in carrying out duties as trier of fact-When expert concludes case law, statute law would be law relied on by ordinary practitioner, opinion will be of little assistance to Court as grounded entirely in law-Such opinion will take on characteristics of legal argument-Berger Report inadmissible in entirety as largely comprised of statements of law which will not assist trier of fact-Dr. Satzewich sociologist asked by counsel for Squamish Indian Band to provide evidence about general policies, practices of Federal Department of Indian Affairs from historical perspective-Satzewich Report offered as general historical material to show how Departmental officials conducted Indian affairs and how they related to Indian bands across Canada-Not proof general Departmental and Indian agent practices were in fact applied in dealings with parties herein-Contents of Report of virtually no relevance to issues, to parties, to Departmental officials who dealt with parties-Conclusions expressed in Satzewich Report about Department's approach to native affairs of minimal relevance, could not be reliably applied to issues before Court-Admission of Satzewich Report into evidence will unduly extend already lengthy trial for no valuable purpose-Report struck out in entirety without leave to amend-Federal Court Rules, C.R.C., c. 663, R. 482(1).