LoginSubscribe Now
International In-house Counsel Journal Logo
International In-house Counsel Journal Logo
  • Home
  • Business Sectors
  • Areas of Law
  • Editorial Board
  • Write a Paper
  • Subscribe
  • Books
  • Reports
  • Back Issues
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Cookie Policy
  • Privacy Policy
  • PLS LogoCopyright & permissions
© 2026 International In-house Counsel Journal Ltd. | ISSN 1754-0607 | Picture Credits: Freepix, Unsplash and by permission of the authors
Back to library search

Admissibility of Expert Evidence: In a Canadian SRO Context

March 2014LitigationGovernment

Abstract

NOTE The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of IIROC. The paper will consider the admissibility of expert evidence as it relates to professional discipline tribunal hearings of the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada [IIROC], the national self - regulatory organization for investment advisors in the Canadian securities industry. Various issues have been identified in the case law that bear upon expert evidence and its admissibility. Cases in administrative law as well as civil and criminal contexts will be considered. The issues discussed in this paper, include: the relaxing of the rule against an expert giving opinions on the ultimate issue; whether expert evidence is based upon hearsay and if so whether it goes to weight rather than admissibility; issues related to bias of the expert witness, such as independence of the expert, and the expert as advocate; and the use of in-house experts. In addition, IIROC case law will be reviewed with a discussion of the differences in treatment of expert evidence presented to address securities related issues of a technical nature as contrasted with expert evidence presented to address standards in the securities industry.

Subscribe to reador
PLS Logo Copyright & permissions

Author

Natalija Popovic

Senior Enforcement Counsel, Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada, Canada

Related Papers

Third Party Litigation Funding and Lawyer Ethics
This article considers the growth of third-party litigation funding (TPLF) in the United States and the ethical implications for lawyers who represent clients who want and/or need third party funding...Read more
Portrait image of Michael Ambrosio
Michael Ambrosio
Professor of Law, Seton Hall University School of Law, USA
In-House Legal Counsel Services to the State of Delaware and the COVID-19 Pandemic
This article provides an overview of how in-house legal services are provided to the government of the State of Delaware, discusses the role of the government attorney as a check...Read more
Portrait image of Aaron Goldstein
Aaron Goldstein
Chief Staff Attorney, State of Delaware Court of Chancery, USA
Climate Change Litigation: A Corporate Perspective
Lucrezia Albanese has a vast experience in litigation having formerly worked in the Relevant Litigation function of Enel SpA Legal Department and being at present Head of Regulatory and Antitrust...Read more
Portrait image of Edoardo Marcenaro
Edoardo Marcenaro
Former Head of Legal & Corporate Affairs, Enel Grids srl, Italy
Portrait image of Lucrezia Albanese
Lucrezia Albanese
Head of Regulatory and Antitrust Legal, Corporate, Regulatory and Antitrust Affairs, Enel Italia S.p.A., Italy
Responding to a Subpoena for Production in Australia
A subpoena, or non-party discovery order, compels a third-party to provide documents as required by a court of competent jurisdiction. Parties to litigation understandably value the ability to obtain evidence,...Read more
Portrait image of Daniel Gosewisch
Daniel Gosewisch
General Counsel, WorkPac Group, Australia