— The only semi-psychiatric element of Dr. Bail’s report was
entitled “Mental Status Examination”, which consumed one
half [of] a page of the 20-page report (para. 69).
— In order to be fair and objective, Dr. Bail should have
asked the plaintiff why her verbal reporting of her prior
medical condition was so vastly different from her prior
medical records. Dr. Bail could not do that because his
methodology in conducting independent medical examinations was to not read such medical records before the
interview (para. 70).
— Dr. Bail testified that he discarded any notes he may have
made during his interview of Ms. Bruff-McArthur as to
what she allegedly told him. His only record of her comments was contained in his report dictated after he interviewed Ms. Bruff-McArthur and after his subsequent
lengthy review of her medical records (para. 73).
— Dr. Bail was making up evidence as he testified to support
his conclusions adverse to Ms. Bruff-McArthur (para. 108).
— The vast majority of Dr. Bail’s report and testimony in-chief
was not of a psychiatric nature but was presented under the
guise of expert medical testimony and the common presumption that a member of the medical profession will be
objective and tell the truth (para. 122).
 The trial judge found that Dr. Bail was not a credible wit-
ness and did not honour his obligation and written undertaking
to be fair, objective and non-partisan pursuant to rule 4.1.01 of
the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194. He summa-
rized Dr. Bail’s evidence as follows, at paras. 123-25:
The vast majority of Dr. Bail’s testimony to the jury amounted to nothing
other than the following:
(a) The plaintiff did not tell me the truth in my interview;
(b) Here are all the instances I found in my 10 to 12 hour review
of her medical records which prove that she did not tell me the
(c) If I as a psychiatrist cannot believe her; how can you?
The primary purpose of R. 4.1.01 is to prohibit and prevent such testimony
in the guise of an expert. Dr. Bail undertook and thereby promised to not do
what he did in front of this jury.
I will not qualify witnesses as experts in the future whose reports present
an approach similar to that of Dr. Bail in this case.