The Makita principles do not require exact correspondence between the assumed facts in an expert report and the proven facts; it is sufficient if the assumed facts are sufficiently like the facts established by the evidence. A deficiency in one expert report may be cured by other reports of the same expert, and all reports must be considered together. Where a tribunal proposes to reject expert evidence on Makita grounds not raised by either party, procedural fairness requires that the parties be given an opportunity to address the issue. Practitioners should ensure evidentiary material before the Commission is comprehensive, particularly where credit is in issue and the matter is to be determined on the papers.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 118 later cases that cite this judgment.
6 of the 118 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.