Yao – Tax Court of Canada excludes an “expert report” of an immigration lawyer – but admits reports of sociology and psychology professors

In the context of a challenge under s. 15 of the Charter to the denial of child tax benefits to refugee claimants, Bocock J admitted, as expert reports, two reports of a sociology and psychology professor; on the basis that they could be helpful to the Court in determining whether the refugees were a relevantly disadvantaged group.

However, he did not admit the report of an immigration lawyer (containing a legislative history and context concerning various federal statutes; and providing observations on wait times, durations and pathways for refugee determination) on the basis that “an expert opinion should be information that is outside the experience or knowledge of the judge” and that the “overall necessity and probative value of [such] evidence from a lawyer is low relative to the time and cost of having an additional expert testify on topics already covered in the context of social science [reports].”

Neal Armstrong. Summary of Yao v. The Queen, 2022 TCC 23 under General Concepts – Evidence.