As part of his charge, the trial judge reviewed very briefly
Dr. Bail’s testimony. He did not instruct the jury regarding
the duty of expert witnesses. Nor did he raise any concerns with
respect to the substance of Dr. Bail’s testimony or his independence.
 After the jury retired to consider their verdict, defence counsel brought a threshold motion, arguing that Ms. Bruff-McArthur
did not meet the threshold in s. 267.5(12) of the Insurance Act,
R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8 of suffering a permanent serious impairment of
an important physical, mental or psychological function.
 Following completion of the motion, the jury returned
with a verdict assessing general damages at $23,500 and rejecting all other heads of damages, including special damages,
future care costs and past and future income loss.
(4) Threshold motion ruling
 Approximately one month later, the trial judge released
his reasons on the threshold motion: see Bruff-Murphy (
Litigation guardian of) v. Gunawardena,  O.J. No. 6, 2016
ONSC 7,  I.L.R. I-5835 (S.C.J.). He concluded that
Ms. Bruff-McArthur’s claim for general damages met the
threshold in s. 267.5(12) of the Insurance Act. In reaching that
conclusion, the trial judge analyzed the evidence adduced at
trial, including the evidence of Dr. Bail.
 I note parenthetically the respondent’s submission that
this court should not rely on the ruling on the threshold motion
because it was released after the jury’s verdict. In what follows,
I will only reference the ruling on the threshold motion to gain
insight into the trial judge’s concerns with Dr. Bail’s testimony
and to understand the trial judge’s reasons for permitting
Dr. Bail to testify. When it comes to determining whether the
trial judge’s concerns were justified or misplaced, I will conduct
my own review of the record.
 In his ruling, the trial judge stated, at para. 58, that during the trial he permitted Dr. Bail to testify because of the “very
high threshold before a court may exclude expert testimony for
bias established by the Supreme Court in White Burgess Langille
Inman v. Abbott and Haliburton Co., 2015 SCC 23, 
2 S.C.R. 182, at paras. 48-49”.
 The trial judge’s analysis of Dr. Bail’s evidence was highly
critical and included the following observations:
— The vast portion of his testimony in-chief consisted of
Dr. Bail telling the jury about prior medical notations and
how they contradict what Ms. Bruff-McArthur allegedly told
him in his interview (para. 68).