.stk-heux43r .stk-img-wrapper{height:350px !important}:where(.stk-hover-parent:hover,.stk-hover-parent.stk--is-hovered) .stk-heux43r .stk-img-wrapper::after{background-color:#000000 !important}:where(.stk-hover-parent:hover,.stk-hover-parent.stk--is-hovered) .stk-heux43r .stk-img-wrapper{--stk-gradient-overlay:0.7 !important}

.stk-x05uzh3-inner-blocks{justify-content:flex-end !important}.stk-x05uzh3-container{padding-top:32px !important;padding-right:32px !important;padding-bottom:32px !important;padding-left:32px !important;display:flex !important}

.stk-yuz3970{margin-bottom:37px !important}.stk-yuz3970 .stk-block-subtitle__text{color:#FFFFFF !important}

Hot-tubbing, in this context, is not what the phrase may first bring to mind.

.stk-a3dyu2k{opacity:0 !important}:where(.stk-hover-parent:hover,.stk-hover-parent.stk--is-hovered) .stk-a3dyu2k{opacity:1 !important}.stk-a3dyu2k .stk-block-text__text{color:#FFFFFF !important}

Text for This Block

Where multiple examiners are involved in a case reports will be issued by each person and sometimes those reports will conflict. One way such conflicts can be resolved is commonly called hot-tubbing.

In brief, hot-tubbing is a Court-ordered discussion/debate involving two or more experts, aimed at sorting out critical issues before the forensic evidence is presented to the Court.¹² As the Science Manual for Canadian Judges states:

Hot-tubbing originates from Australia, but has since been introduced to countries including Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, the United States, England and Canada. In Canada, the Federal Court Rules, SOR/98-106, were amended in 2010 to permit hot-tubbing of experts at pre-trial and at trial (see sections 52.6, 282.1 and 282.2 of the Federal Court Rules below).

Science Manual for Canadian Judges, page 160.

1. National Judicial Institute. (2013 – updated July 1, 2018). Science Manual for Canadian Judges. URL: https://www.nji-inm.ca/index.cfm/publications/science-manual-for-canadian-judges/?langSwitch=en
2. See also Edmond, G., Ferguson, A. P., & Ward, T. (2017). Assessing Concurrent Expert Evidence. Civil Justice Quarterly, 37(3). http://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/32674/