It is no secret that expert reports have become a staple in modern litigation cases. With that in mind, the legislator, during the last major reform, started promoting and often mandating the use of a common expert in order to supposedly decrease costs and help the court take more efficient and enlightened decisions.
While the concept of a single (and common) expert can sometimes be quite helpful, many attorneys, including the undersigned, believe that it can also often create more problems than it solves. Furthermore, single experts do not always decrease costs. In fact, they will often create a significant financial burden on each party as cases with highly technical aspects will often force parties to hire their own expert to comment and explain the common expert’s findings and opinions.
In light of the above, attorneys can petition the court to allow multiple experts. To that end, a kind of understanding had been reached wherein if an expert had already started or completed his report, the court would allow the filing of multiple reports in order to avoid that said party would pay for a second expert.
However, in a recent case where the court was petitioned to allow for multiple expert reports, the judge confirmed that the fact that one or both parties have already mandated an expert is not a reason to grant the motion.
Since it is very important, for the parties as well as the court, to have the best understanding possible of the facts at hand, and since the facts of every case are usually unique, it is very important to consult your legal advisor in order to better protect your rights and recourses for any dispute requiring an expert.
Harry Karavitis, Attorney-at-Law.
Alepin Gauthier Avocats Inc.