No. 4735, 2004 CanLII 41166 (S.C.J.) that Dr. Bail could not be
cross-examined on prior court rulings or arbitration decisions
where his testimony was rejected or his objectivity as a witness
had been questioned.
 The trial judge then put to counsel for Ms. Bruff-McArthur that there remained the issue of whether Dr. Bail had
sufficient professional objectivity to provide independent evidence and he asked her if she wished to cross-examine Dr. Bail
on this issue as part of a voir dire. Counsel declined that offer
and elected instead to cross-examine Dr. Bail on the issue as
part of her cross-examination in the trial proper.1
 The trial judge then proceeded to rule that Dr. Bail could
not testify on certain sections of his report. The relevant sections
were primarily where Dr. Bail was critical of the reliability of
the conclusions reached by other doctors examining Ms. Bruff-McArthur. The trial judge also made clear that he did not want
Dr. Bail testifying about Ms. Bluff-McArthur’s credibility.
 Dr. Bail testified in-chief that his methodology was not to
review any of a subject’s medical records before meeting with
them. Consistent with this methodology, after the examination
of Ms. Bruff-McArthur, which took just over an hour, Dr. Bail
spent ten to 12 hours reviewing her medical records, looking for
discrepancies between what she told him in the meeting and
what was in the records. These discrepancies formed the largest
portion of his report.
 In summary, Dr. Bail testified that in his opinion:
Ms. Bruff-McArthur did not develop any psychiatric disorders
or limitations as a result of the accident; required no psychotherapy or psychotropic medication in relation to the accident;
her pre-accident psychiatric profile was not exacerbated by the
accident; and she did not require housekeeping or attendant
care as a result of any psychiatric condition.
(3) The verdict
 Dr. Bail was the last witness to testify at trial. After closing submissions, the trial judge gave his charge to the jury. The
charge was previously subject to a pre-charge conference and it
was provided to the parties in advance of being presented to
the juries. No objection was made to the charge and no special
instruction regarding Dr. Bail’s testimony was requested.
1 On appeal, the appellants are represented by different counsel than the
counsel they were represented by at trial.