(2) The expert evidence
(a) Dr. Smith’s “reports”
 Dr. Smith provided therapy to Mr. Imeson within the cor-
rectional institution from June 26, 2012 to April 13, 2015, when
Mr. Imeson discontinued therapy.
 During the treatment sessions, Dr. Smith took handwritten notes, which he kept as personal notes in his file cabinet. In
April 2016, at Mr. Imeson’s request, Dr. Smith completed summaries of the notes (referred to at trial as his “reports”), which he
published to OMS, a computerized document-handling system
available to individuals with clearance in Correctional Services
Canada.1 The reports were all dated April 1, 2016, except for
a “termination of treatment” report dated April 21, 2016 as well
as an earlier report dated February 17, 2015. In accordance with
the institution’s internal policies, Dr. Smith destroyed his handwritten notes after he published his summaries to OMS.
 Dr. Smith’s reports are not a verbatim record of his handwritten notes. They do not indicate specific session dates. They
summarize the treatment sessions and include details of the history Mr. Imeson recounted about his family and childhood, the
circumstances leading up to his time at Maryvale and in foster
care, the alleged sexual assaults and the three murders that
resulted in his convictions and imprisonment (which Dr. Smith
referred to as the “index offences”). The reports also include
a number of comments and opinions, as well as Dr. Smith’s recommendations for future treatment. According to Dr. Smith,
he made thematic connections in the reports, which were not present in his handwritten notes.
(b) The admissibility voir dire
 The trial judge held a voir dire into the proposed evidence
of Dr. Smith, who was put forward as a participant expert.
 The purpose of the voir dire, as identified by the trial
judge, was to determine (a) the ability of Dr. Smith to give expert
evidence as a participant expert; (b) the basis on which the evidence was being offered; and (c) the scope of the expert evidence.
 Mr. Imeson’s counsel confirmed that she intended to lead
Dr. Smith’s evidence, including the opinions expressed in his
1 I note that one report, dated February 17, 2015, was prepared a year earlier
while Mr. Imeson’s therapy with Dr. Smith was still ongoing. That report
does not contain any of the opinions related to liability or causation that
are at issue on this appeal.