(e) interest; and
Preliminary Issue — Qualification of Experts
 Both Mr. Durand and Mr. McEvoy are chartered professional accountants (“CPA”) and hold legacy designations as chartered accountants (“CA”). As experienced public accountants they
are both qualified to express opinions on the accuracy of financial
records and to prepare financial statements in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”). The trial was
necessary because the accountants did not agree on the final
numbers. They were both necessary and material witnesses.
 At the opening of trial, Mr. Burke sought to disqualify
Mr. Durand. His argument was that Mr. Durand had prepared
his original report in a partisan fashion and had only latterly
been asked to complete the form 53 acknowledgement of
expert’s duty to the court. I was asked to conclude that he should
be excluded as an expert on the basis of bias.
 I declined to exclude the evidence. There were three main
considerations in that ruling:
( i) First, even though it would have been preferable for Rule 53
to have been brought to Mr. Durand’s attention at the time
of his original retainer and for him to have incorporated the
acknowledgment into his original report, Mr. Durand
acknowledged his duty before he gave his evidence.
( ii) Second, Mr. Durand is governed by the code of conduct and
standards of public accountancy. The principal objective of
public accountancy and of GAAP is to provide assurance of
the reliability of financial records. In other words, there is a
degree of non-partisan objectivity built in to manner in which
both Mr. Durand and Mr. McEvoy are obliged to approach
their work by virtue of their professional obligations.
( iii) Third, both accountants participated in a mediation as a
result of which they reached agreement on certain numbers
and modified their calculation of others. This search for
common ground further demonstrated understanding that
it was not the role of the expert to simply advocate for the
party that retained him.
 I was satisfied there was inadequate reason to disqualify
Mr. Durand for bias. I found that both Mr. Durand and Mr. McEvoy