JAAPL
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 35:3:350-356 (2007)
Copyright © 2007 by the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Glancy, G. D.
Right arrow Articles by Bradford, J. M. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Glancy, G. D.
Right arrow Articles by Bradford, J. M. W.
ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY

The Admissibility of Expert Evidence in Canada

Graham D. Glancy, MB, ChB and John M. W. Bradford, MB, ChB, DPM

Dr. Glancy is Assistant Professor of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Dr. Bradford is Professor and Head, Division of Forensic Psychiatry, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Address correspondence to: Graham D. Glancy, MB, ChB, 302 The East Mall, Suite 400, Etobicoke, Ontario M9B 6C7, Canada. E-mail: graham.glancy{at}utoronto.ca

Recent decisions in Canadian Law suggest that it is evolving in a manner heavily influenced by American law. A recent Supreme Court decision uses the framework of prevailing law and superimposes the more stringent criteria enunciated in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. We trace this development, reviewing the intervening cases that have contributed, and conclude with a summary of the law as it stands today.






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2007 by the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.