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

Hot tub without people, with water churning.Hot tub without people, with water churning.

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:
  2. See also Edmond, G., Ferguson, A. P., & Ward, T. (2017). Assessing Concurrent Expert Evidence. Civil Justice Quarterly, 37(3).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.