Day 44
Note: I am a poor note-taker and these summaries will contain errors and omissions which will reflect my limitations. My intention is to report on the facts as accurately as possible although a subconscious bias may creep in. I can only provide glimpses into what I see as relevant and interesting events. My goal is to capture the essence of the day’s events rather than be comprehensive.
Read the reference documents: The Legal Case and Events Leading to Trial to obtain an understanding of the case and its history. Names and terms are abbreviated and defined in Glossary.
Defence Evidence Called on Behalf of the Defendant, Avnish Nanda
Dr. Hashman formerly testified on Caylan’s behalf concerning the psychological damage Caylan suffered because of the Defendants’ conduct. Dr. Ennis was called by the Defendant Nanda to counter the evidence provided by Dr. Hashman.
Direct Examination of Dr. Liam Ennis by Mr. Franken (Counsel for Nanda)
Dr. Ennis, B.A., M.A., Ph.D., R. Psych., is a Registered Psychologist called to provide a critical review of the processes and procedures Dr, Hashman relied upon to formulate his clinical opinions. His evidence included the following:
Dr. Ennis reviewed his education and professional experience as set out in his 17‑page curriculum vitae.
He has been qualified as an expert witness 38 times, primarily in criminal matters, and has never been qualified as an expert in trauma.
He did not conduct any evaluation of Caylan.
He cannot offer any clinical opinions about her.
His report is a critical review of the processes and procedures relied upon by Dr. Hashman in forming his clinical opinions.
Mr. Franken sought to have the Court qualify Dr. Ennis as an expert clinical psychologist with expertise in best practices for the treatment of trauma, trauma‑related symptoms, and depression.
The Court recognized Dr. Ennis as an expert in those fields, and his report was entered as an exhibit.
Dr. Ennis’s Evidence
He referred to a report prepared by Dr. Houle, who also did not evaluate Caylan.
Dr. Houle had been retained by Sun Life.
Dr. Houle suggested that Caylan’s vocational capacity was not sufficiently impaired to justify long‑term disability benefits.
Most people experience adverse events and are negatively affected for a period of time.
In most cases, the effects are transient and individuals recover and return to baseline functioning.
Recovery and resilience are the norm.
Malingering is prevalent in forensic psychiatric settings.
Malingering can arise in three circumstances:
a litigation context;
non‑compliance with treatment; and
a discrepancy between self‑reported symptoms and objective evidence.
Dr. Ennis believes all three circumstances apply to Caylan.
He relies on Dr. Houle’s report.
Neither Dr. Houle nor Dr. Ennis evaluated Caylan.
Dr. Ennis does not know the extent to which Caylan’s functioning may be impaired.
The treatment of choice for major depression is cognitive behavioural therapy combined with medication.
The treatment of choice for trauma is prolonged exposure therapy.
Dr. Ennis was critical of Caylan’s refusal to try medication.
He was also critical of the type of psychotherapy she received.
Dr. Ennis criticized Dr. Hashman’s report on three grounds:
it relied too heavily on self‑reporting;
it was unclear whether Dr. Hashman followed a step‑wise diagnostic process;
Dr. Hashman’s prognosis was unduly pessimistic.
Cross‑Examination of Dr. Ennis by Mr. Harrison (Counsel for Caylan)
Dr. Ennis did not review the reports of Dr. Brown or Dr. Mandel.
He does not know what discussions Caylan may have had regarding the side‑effects of medication.
Criterion A stressors represent the “typical course” in which a person experiences a negative event and then returns to baseline functioning.
The following are not Criterion A stressors; they do not represent the typical course:
being defamed on the front page of newspapers and in national television broadcasts over multiple weeks;
being unable to obtain gainful employment for years due to reputational damage;
being unable to financially support one’s family for years due to inability to secure employment;
losing friends and one’s social network due to defamation;
being treated as a social pariah over a prolonged period;
being subjected to ongoing social‑media shaming, humiliation, and harassment for years;
being subjected to continued defamation over years.
Dr. Ennis acknowledged that the prolonged nature of these stressors takes the situation outside the “typical case.”
He acknowledged that Caylan’s circumstances are unique.
He acknowledged that if Caylan’s ex‑spouse, family, friends, and co‑workers corroborate her self‑report, such corroboration would support the validity of her self‑reported symptoms.
Dr. Ennis’s testimony concluded, and he was excused.
Comment
Dr. Ennis was called to counter the evidence given by Dr. Hashman on Caylan’s behalf. A comparison of their evidence shows:
Dr. Hashman is a psychiatrist; Dr. Ennis is a psychologist.
Dr. Hashman spent 4.5 hours interviewing Caylan.
Dr. Ennis did not meet or evaluate her.
Dr. Hashman’s report was consistent with the reports of Dr. Bajwa, Dr. Pachet, and Dr. Lucido, all of whom examined Caylan.
Dr. Ennis’s report relied on a report prepared for an insurer by Dr. Houle, who had not examined Caylan.
Dr. Hashman concluded that Caylan had received appropriate psychotherapy.
Dr. Ennis concluded that she had not.
Dr. Hashman concluded that Caylan “continues to present with genuine, persistent symptoms and functional impairment.”
Dr. Ennis inferred that Caylan had fully recovered.
Dr. Hashman had no suspicion of malingering; Caylan’s reports were consistent with clinical observations and psychological testing.
Dr. Ennis suggested malingering, despite conducting no clinical observations or psychological testing.