This appeal raises the following issues:
— Did the trial judge err in not permitting Ms. Bruff-
McArthur to cross-examine Dr. Bail on prior court and arbi-
tral findings made against him?
— Did the trial judge err in qualifying Dr. Bail as an expert
and/or in not intervening or taking steps to exclude
Dr. Bail’s testimony?
— Did the respondent violate the rule in Browne v. Dunn?
 As I will discuss in the analysis section of my reasons,
I have concluded that the trial judge did not err in ruling that
Dr. Bail could not be cross-examined regarding prior court and
arbitral findings made against him. However, the trial judge did
err in permitting Dr. Bail to testify and in failing to exclude in
whole or in part Dr. Bail’s testimony and, consequently, a new
trial is required. Given this finding, it is unnecessary to consider
the Browne v. Dunn argument.
(1) The scope of Dr. Bail’s cross-examination
 Counsel for Ms. Bruff-McArthur sought to cross-examine
Dr. Bail on three previous comments regarding his testimony in
other cases, indicating that he had
— become an advocate for the party calling him as a witness,
which is not the role of an expert: see Morrison v. Greig,
 O.J. No. 225, 46 C.C.L.T. (3d) 212 (S.C.J.), at paras.
— appropriated the role of advocate of the insurer rather than
an impartial witness, took a partisan approach and focused
on inconsistencies in the information given by claimant,
such that his credibility was seriously weakened and should
be disregarded: see Gabremichael v. Zurich Insurance Co.,
 O.F.S.C.I.D. No. 198, at paras. 31-33; and
— presented as a notably partisan witness: see Sohi v. ING
Insurance Co. of Canada,  O.F.S.C.D. No. 106, at
 Ms. Bruff-McArthur submits that the trial judge erred in
denying her the right to cross-examine Dr. Bail on these findings