shoulder. Ms. Bruff-McArthur also alleged that the accident
has left her in an apparent chronic pain condition with
attendant anxiety and depression. She says that she is unable
to work and that her enjoyment of life has been substantially
 Ms. Bruff-McArthur commenced an action against the
respondent, who admitted liability. The sole issue in the 23-day
jury trial was what damages, if any, she suffered.
 In support of her case, Ms. Bruff-McArthur called a number of physicians who had either treated or examined her, two of
whom were retained by insurers to conduct independent medical
examinations. The consensus among these witnesses was that
she suffered in the manner complained of and that the cause of
her suffering was the motor vehicle accident.
 The defence called two witnesses, both of them medical
expert witnesses who had been retained by the defence to conduct independent medical examinations. The first, Dr. Gianni
Maistrelli, an orthopedic specialist, testified that he found
nothing wrong with Ms. Bruff-McArthur from a musculosketal
standpoint. This conclusion was not surprising given that she
was complaining of soft tissue injuries.
(2) Dr. Bail’s evidence
 The other defence expert witness was Dr. Monte Bail,
a psychiatrist. Counsel for Ms. Bruff-McArthur objected to his
testifying on two grounds.
 First, she argued that his report was essentially an attack
on Ms. Bruff-McArthur’s credibility. Counsel pointed to numerous instances in the report where Dr. Bail commented on discrepancies between the information Ms. Bruff-McArthur
provided in her interview with him and what he later found in
her medical records. Dr. Bail never put those alleged inconsistencies to Ms. Bruff-McArthur. Counsel sought an order that
excluded the parts of Dr. Bail’s report that did not meet the test
in Browne v. Dunn (1893), 6 R. 67 (H.L.) and an order that
Dr. Bail not be permitted to testify regarding his views on
 Second, Ms. Bruff-McArthur argued that Dr. Bail was
biased. In support of this argument, counsel submitted that she
should be permitted to cross-examine Dr. Bail on findings made
in another court case and two arbitrations to the effect that he
was not an independent witness. The trial judge ruled, relying
on R. v. Karaibrahimovic,  A.J. No. 527, 2002 ABCA 102,
2 Alta. L.R. (4th) 213, R. v. Ghorvei (1999), 46 O.R. (3d) 63,
 O.J. No. 3241 (C.A.) and Desbiens v. Mordini,  O.J.