L’EXPERTISE COMMUNE DANS LES PROCÈS CIVILS AU QUÉBEC

UNE RÉVOLUTION AVORTÉE

Abstract

This article offers a critical analysis of the integration of joint expert opinions into civil proceedings in Quebec, in light of the 2014 reforms to the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Presented as a key tool for reducing costs and promoting a more efficient justice system, the joint expert opinion was intended to limit the damaging effects of the adversarial system, particularly the proliferation of experts offering partisan opinions. However, ten years after the new CPC came into force, this tool remains marginal and rarely used.

Drawing on a review of legislative texts, the debates preceding the reform, and recent case law (notably the Webasto decision), the  article highlights the resistance of judicial players—both lawyers and judges—to abandoning the traditional model of party control over the case file. This results in a persistent tension between the adversarial principle, a pillar of the confrontational system, and the principle of proportionality, now established as the foundation of case management.

The article concludes that the relative failure of joint expert opinions reveals a structural limitation of procedural reforms when they do not align with the dominant judicial culture. Without a genuine paradigm shift among practitioners and judges, the cultural shift necessary to ensure better access to justice also risks remaining an aborted revolution.