This case involves a voir dire to confirm the credentials of an expert witness the defence would like to call upon for testimony on behalf of the accused, who had been charged under provincial legislation for failing to ensure that the safety or well-being of an animal was not compromised.
The accused wished to have Dr. Fortin declared an expert in animal welfare. However, the court found that defence counsel was unable to demonstrate Dr. Fortin could appropriately act in that capacity on the issue in dispute because they were not aware of the facts of Tremblay’s case and also due to previous disciplinary decisions against Dr. Fortin.
The court referred to the R c Mohan 1994 CanLII 80, where the Supreme Court specified the circumstances in which expert evidence is admissible. While it was determined that Dr. Fortin had the necessary knowledge for equines and experience that would help the court understand animal welfare, there were concerns around credibility. It was revealed that Dr. Fortin had been providing on-site care for when the Equi-Centre that the accused was charged with failing to ensure adequate care of, leading the court to question why they did not intervene, especially when the inspectors and a MAPAQ veterinarians have found several shortcomings in 4 months (para. 20).
In addition, the court found that experts being called to testify must not only base their opinion on science but would also be obliged to defend their professional position, in this case with regard to her visits to the Equi-Nature Centre. The court also doubted the relevance of any testimony given Dr. Fortin being unaware of the facts and even the accused who had admitted that they did not know what Dr. Fortin would say. Dr. Fortin also testified that she had only recently became aware of studies on animal welfare. After being cross examined on previous disciplinary hearings, it was unclear whether Dr. Fortin would testify honestly. Those disciplinary hearings from the province’s governing body via the Disciplinary Council of the Ordre des médecins vétérinaires du Québec included:
- Having invoked inaccurate information that could mislead public on a radio interview
- Allowed a person not a member of the order to carry out osteopathic treatment on a Siberian tiger even though these are acts exclusive to the profession
- Carried out the castration of a dog in an unsuitable place; and
- Failing to respond, as quickly as possible, to two requests for information made to them during an investigation.
The court stated they could not believe in the sincerity of Dr. Fortin when they had to confront her with the documents to learn about the truth of her disciplinary past, which included periodic deregistration, reprimands, limiting of practice, and fines.
The Court concluded that they could not find Dr. Fortin to be able to objectively testify on animal welfare when they had been found guilty of ethical breaches and hiding disciplinary decisions regarding animals herself. Dr. Fortin was not deemed to qualify as an expert witness, and the court ordered that the matter proceed without her.
https://canlii.ca/t/k04ht