of PALS in terms of any inherit bias. A similar bias would apply to any expert witness who has a paid retainer with the Canadian Motor Speedway. The basic intent of the introduction of the Rules of Civil Procedure in regard to expert witness qualifications was to eliminate partisan positions by experts. If there was any partisan content in Dr. Gayler’s Witness Statement under the OMB’s Rules of Procedure the three opposing parties had the opportunity to challenge this through responding evidence, as is required ahead of the hearing. This was not done. This lack of response is testimony to the soundness of Dr. Gayler’s testimony as an expert. Rather than find deficiencies based on the lack off sufficient research and familiarity with the land use planning issues in dispute, the opposing parties chose to challenge Dr. Gayler’s testimony through his association with a supposed “advocacy group.” This is an approach that challenges the ability of people to work together to protect the environment, in this case prime farmlands and natural areas. and is incompatible with the norms of a liberal and democratic society.
Join us in representing Ontario’s
Niagara Escarpment
We invite you to visit our website and renew your membership with the Coalition on the Niagara Escarpment. In 2013, let’s celebrate our accomplishments during our 35 years of protection and preservation.
niagaraescarpment.org on the edge | Winter 2012