opportunity either in Gager or on this appeal to explain much of
the fresh evidence Abbey now relies on.
 I agree with Abbey’s submission that the fresh evidence
is sufficiently cogent that if it had been put before the trial judge
he would have ruled Totten’s opinion evidence about the meaning of a teardrop tattoo inadmissible. However, even though the
fresh evidence does raise concerns about whether Totten was a
fair and objective witness, I do not think it establishes a case of
bias. Even with the fresh evidence, I am satisfied that Totten’s
expert evidence would meet the threshold requirements for
admissibility at the first stage of the White Burgess test. Cromwell J. noted in White Burgess that only in a rare case will
expert evidence fail to meet the threshold requirement of being
impartial and unbiased. This is not one of those rare cases. Nor do
I think this is a case where Totten’s evidence would be rendered
inadmissible at the second gatekeeper stage because of bias.
 And I agree with the Crown’s contention to the extent
that on this record I would not conclude Totten had concocted his
evidence. It would not be fair to Totten to make that finding
when he has had no opportunity to explain or meet some of the
fresh evidence put against him. But I do not think it is necessary
to go as far as finding fabrication or concoction to render Totten’s
opinion evidence inadmissible.
 The fundamental problem with Totten’s trial evidence,
which was brought to light by the fresh evidence, is its reliability, or more accurately its unreliability. If the trial judge had
known about the fresh evidence, then at the gatekeeper stage he
would have exercised his discretion and ruled that Totten’s evidence could not go to the jury because of its unreliability.
 A trial judge’s gatekeeper role is crucial in ensuring that
expert evidence is sufficiently reliable to be admitted into evidence. Under the test in White Burgess for the admissibility of
expert evidence, “reliability” is an express factor the trial judge
must consider at the gatekeeper stage; and reliability is a key
component of the evidence’s probative value and thus of another
express factor, “legal relevance”.
 The focus on the reliability of expert evidence at the
gatekeeper stage was also a theme in the important report of the
Inquiry into Pediatric Forensic Pathology in Ontario (Toronto:
Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General, 2008), authored by
our former colleague Stephen Goudge. He observed, at vol. 3,
p. 470: “The evidence at this Inquiry demonstrated that the legal
system is vulnerable to unreliable expert evidence, especially
when it is presented by someone with [the expert’s] demeanour
and reputation”. And so he emphasized, at pp. 478-79, that the