a biomechanical engineer and could not give biomechanical
expert evidence sought to be introduced through the late expert
report. The same biomechanical engineers had previously provided an expert report for Novex on the use of Mr. Stewart’s seat
belt at the time of the MVA but the experts did not do a biomechanical injury analysis for the rear passengers. The biomechanical experts received their instructions to prepare their late report
after Mr. Paquette (and some other witnesses) had completed giving evidence at this trial.
 It is the responsibility of Novex’s counsel to comply with
service of an expert’s report under the Rules of Civil Procedure.
It failed to do so as it relates to this late expert’s report. It was
Novex’s responsibility to serve and file their expert reports in
advance of trial if it was going to or needed to rely on a particular
expert report. Moreover, given that Novex was going to lead evidence regarding the rear passengers’ seat belt use at the time of
the MVA, it should have known it would require a biomechanical
expert report given that Mr. Paquette was not qualified to give
such an opinion.
 To permit Novex to introduce this expert report at this
time would result in a lengthy delay, Yaxley’s counsel would have
to retain their own expert to review and respond to Novex’s late
expert report. The delay would be months. In my view, this would
be an undue delay.
 In addition, prejudice exists in these circumstances.
Yaxley’s counsel had already cross-examined Mr. Paquette and
numerous other witnesses based on the existing expert reports on
whether the rear passengers were seat belted at the time of the
MVA. I am satisfied that submitting the late expert report would
 Finally, this evidence only goes to impeaching the evidence
of Elaina Stewart and possibly the other rear passengers’ testi-
mony. But there are several problems with this:
(a) this late expert report will not afford evidence as direct evi-
dence or the basis for an inference on the issue to be decided.
As I have stated above, whether the rear passengers were
seat belted at the time of the MVA will not assist in deter-
mining the issue at trial;
(b) Elaina Stewart’s evidence only deals with the whether the
four men were seat belted when they left the restaurant/bar
and not when the MVA occurred, a considerable time later.
The late expert report does not really contradict Elaina
Stewart’s evidence since her evidence only relates to the time
when the taxi cab left the restaurant/bar and the late expert