her accident related claims and her provided medical and psychological history, and that the history which she has been providing over time since the
accident cannot be relied upon. It is evident that Ms. Bruff-McArthur has
serious credibility issues regarding her accident related claims.
In the penultimate paragraph of his report, he states: “lack of
reliability, credibility and validity are factors in this case”.
 Next, the whole tone of the report was a reliable predictor
of Dr. Bail’s testimony. He goes out of his way to make points
that are meant to damage Ms. Bruff-McArthur’s case. For
example, he opines on the views of several physicians who examined Ms. Bruff-McArthur, concluding that she misled them.
Dr. Bail speculates that one of her therapists may have been
improperly holding herself out as a qualified psychologist. He
criticizes a psychiatrist who treated Ms. Bruff-McArthur,
Dr. Arora, because they discussed “personal family things, such
as her daughters’ potty training and her son’s school problems”
when “psychotherapy was requested and paid solely in relation
to treating accident related claims”. Dr. Bail notes that Ms.
Bruff-McArthur and Dr. Arora discussed the notions of karma
and reincarnation. He chastises Dr. Arora for introducing personal religious beliefs in a therapy session. I note that there is
no evidence that these topics reflect Dr. Arora’s personal beliefs.
 I could go on with further examples, but the point is that
in his report Dr. Bail goes beyond a mere lack of independence
and appears to have adopted the role of advocate for the defence.
Given the paucity of psychiatric analysis in the report versus the
high degree of potential prejudice in wrongly swaying the jury,
a cost-benefit analysis would have invariably lead to the conclusion that Dr. Bail should have been excluded from testifying.
 To be fair to the trial judge, he attempted to ameliorate
these concerns by specifically instructing the witness not to testify regarding certain issues, such as his criticism of other doctors. However, as the trial judge essentially acknowledged in his
threshold motion ruling, had he undertaken the cost-benefit
analysis he would not have permitted Dr. Bail to testify.
(2) During the expert’s testimony
 As we know, the trial judge permitted Dr. Bail to testify
and determined that Dr. Bail crossed the line of acceptable
expert evidence. In order to analyze his response to this situation, it is first necessary to consider whether the trial judge’s
concerns regarding Dr. Bail’s testimony were well founded.
Assuming that they were, the next issue is what the trial judge
should have done in the circumstances.