experienced sexual abuse often talk about leaving their bodies
while the abuse is taking place.
 Dr. Smith was asked whether Mr. Imeson’s unconscious
belief systems related back to his abuse as a child. At that point,
the trial judge cautioned that “Dr. Smith cannot speak to causation per se. All he can speak to is his observations and assessments.” Counsel then asked another question seeking to relate
Mr. Imeson’s distorted beliefs and attitudes to his childhood
 Defence counsel objected that Mr. Imeson’s counsel had led
evidence from Dr. Smith that was outside the scope of the trial
judge’s admissibility ruling because it dealt with the abuse having
caused certain results. After some discussion in the absence of the
jury, including the trial judge asking whether defence counsel was
moving for a mistrial (they declined), the trial judge noted that
the way the questions were being asked was “driving a conclusion
that there [was] a causal connection in which Dr. Smith ha[d]
become invested that [was] based upon an acceptance of the
veracity” of what he was told. She observed that “the main purpose of the admission of Dr. Smith’s evidence was to describe
his assessment and treatment of Mr. Imeson, not to bootstrap
Mr. Imeson’s testimony by saying he believes him”.
 When the jury returned, they were not instructed to disregard any part of Dr. Smith’s evidence, nor did the trial judge provide a direction respecting the proper use of the evidence. Rather,
she reminded the jury of her earlier hearsay caution. Dr. Smith
did not answer the question to which objection had been taken.
 In cross-examination, Dr. Smith confirmed that it was not
his role to determine if the trauma happened, but only to treat
what he was being told. He also confirmed that, in forming his
opinions, he only had the information he was given by Mr. Imeson, and that he did not have records from his school, his group
homes, Maryvale, his hospital records or his Children’s Aid files.
Nor did he speak with any of Mr. Imeson’s family members.
(e) The jury charge
 In the jury charge, the trial judge described Dr. Smith as
an expert witness who was entitled to give opinion evidence. She
repeated the hearsay caution and instructed the jury that what
Mr. Imeson told Dr. Smith “should be accepted . . . only to show
the information upon which the mental health clinician based
 Later in her instructions, after she identified the question
for the jury to determine as “whether any of the sexual assaults
alleged took place”, the trial judge gave the following direction: