Insurer’s expert report not mere “opinion,” Manitoba Appeal Court rules

Insurers’ expert reports count as “evidence” in a court of law in the same way that plaintiffs’ expert reports do, the Manitoba Court of Appeal has ruled.
In Missler v. Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation (MPI), the Court of Appeal considered a lower court decision that effectively identified two plaintiffs’ expert reports as “evidence,” whereas the insurer’s expert report was dismissed as mere “opinion.”
“Opinion from an expert is still evidence, especially in this case where the expert’s curriculum vitae was filed along with a report that outlined the facts upon which the opinion was based,” the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the province’s public insurer. “The report of [MPI’s] expert, which referred to and relied on conflicting facts in the case, was as much evidence in the case as that of the other two expert reports relied on by the [plaintiff].”
The appellate court thereby overturned a lower court’s order for summary judgment, which declared that a single-vehicle accident was not caused by the plaintiff’s improper conduct or negligence.
In any motion for summary judgment, the moving party must prove they could be successful at trial. In that case, the other party must prove there is no genuine issue for trial.
The motions judge found MPI had failed to prove there was a genuine issue for trial, stating “in the case at bar, [MPI] has not filed conflicting evidence, but, rather, conflicting opinion.”
But opinion from any expert is still evidence and not mere opinion, the court ruled.
In addition, “besides the conflicting evidence of the experts, there was also evidence from cross-examination of the respondent himself that raised questions of liability,” the Court of Appeal noted. “Consequently, there is conflicting evidence in front of us [that] raises a genuine issue for trial.
“We are all of the view that this was not an appropriate case to be dealt with by way of summary judgment proceedings. The appeal [by MPI] is allowed.”