After the oral ruling was delivered, Mr. Imeson’s counsel
requested clarification of the ruling, including whether Dr. Smith
would be permitted to testify that it was possible that “but for the
abuse the first index offence would not have occurred”. The trial
judge confirmed that this evidence could be led “on the basis that
this was an opinion that was formed by Dr. Smith during the
course of his assessment of and the therapy provided by him”.
 The trial judge then heard argument on whether Dr. Smith’s
reports could be filed in evidence. She permitted the reports to be
filed in their entirety, referring to Dr. Smith’s status as a participant expert.
 The trial judge provided written reasons, dated October 5,
2016, which are largely consistent with her oral rulings. In
her written reasons, however, she described the relevance of
Dr. Smith’s evidence to the issues in the trial somewhat more
broadly, at paras. 7 and 8:
Whether [Mr. Imeson] has suffered psychological and/or emotional harm is
a central issue in this civil action for damages for alleged sexual abuse. I con-
sider the proposed evidence of Dr. Smith to be relevant to that issue and to
the nature and extent of that harm, if any, as those are factors among those
to be considered by the jury in assessing damages.
The fact that [Mr. Imeson] has sought and undergone counselling and therapy may also be considered by the jury as relevant to whether or not the sexual
abuse alleged occurred.
 In her written ruling, the trial judge also confirmed her
decision to admit into evidence the reports under s. 35 of the
Evidence Act, as she was satisfied that they represented “an organized and accurate summary record of notes made by [Dr. Smith]
during therapy sessions of the history taken from, observations
made of, and counselling provided to, [Mr. Imeson] by Dr. Smith”:
at para. 20.
(d) The expert evidence at trial and midtrial instructions
 Before Dr. Smith testified, the trial judge informed the jury
that he was qualified to provide “expert opinion with respect to
certain issues”. Dr. Smith testified that he had provided therapy
to Mr. Imeson while he was in prison, in his capacity as a mental
health clinician, and he described his qualifications.
 The trial judge gave an instruction, after Dr. Smith’s qualifications were presented and before he embarked on the substance of his evidence, in which she cautioned the jury that she
had determined that Dr. Smith’s evidence was admissible to provide certain opinions, and that any statements Mr. Imeson made
to Dr. Smith while taking a history or in the course of therapy
were not to be taken as proof that the contents of the statements