Leave to appeal from interlocutory evidentiary rulings of a trial judge will not readily be granted. The fragmentation of trials by appeals against interlocutory rulings is inappropriate other than in the most exceptional cases. Factors weighing against leave include: alternative bases for admissibility, the need to review factual findings, the possibility of re-tender on different bases, the potential for trial evidence to affect admissibility, and the inability of the appellate court to assess the importance of the evidence to the ultimate decision. The interaction between the business records exception (s 69 Evidence Act) and the Makita requirements for expert opinion evidence remains an open question.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 14 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 14 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.