Admissibility Of SPECT Scans As Evidence

• Published date: 09 December 2021
• Subject Matter: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Personal Injury
• Law Firm: McCague Borlack LLP
• Author: Mr Alan Drimer and Ryan R. Taylor

On November 29, 2021, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice released an important decision in Meade v. Hussein, 2021 ONSC 7850 regarding the use of single-photon emission computed tomography scans ("SPECT scans"). Justice Bale found that SPECT scans failed to meet the reliability foundation test for novel scientific evidence.

The plaintiff alleged that she sustained a traumatic brain injury as a result of a motor vehicle accident. On May 13, 2019, a well-known proponent of SPECT scans, Dr. Siow, conducted a SPECT scan on the plaintiff, concluding that it represented a "previous traumatic brain injury".

Dr. Siow provided evidence that he performs 50 to 60 SPECT scans per month for a range of different purposes.

Dr. Mitchell, a specialist in neurology, provided evidence to the Court that the use of SPECT in the diagnosis of TBI is currently the subject of controversy and that there is no consensus in the medical or scientific community that SPECT is an accurate tool to diagnose TBI.

The Court considered two issues: whether Dr. Siow's use of brain SPECT evidence in the case is "novel science" and if the evidence is "novel science", has the reliable foundation test set out in R. v. J.-L.J., 2001 SCC 51 been satisfied?

The Court held that the use of SPECT scans was not novel in itself, however, the use of SPECT scans to diagnose TBI was - particularly where it is necessary to differentiate TBI from anxiety disorders and depression.

As the Court found that this was novel science, it had to consider whether the evidence tendered satisfied the reliable foundation test. In considering the same, the Court specifically considered the four factors set out in J. L.J., supra:

1. whether the theory or technique can be and has been tested;
   
   Dr. Siow conceded that his methodology has not been tested but argued that by its nature, it is not susceptible to testing.

2. whether the theory or technique has been subject to peer review and publication;
   
   Dr. Siow conceded that his work has not been published or peer-reviewed and that there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting his theory that at the...