Bibliography and References
Alberta, Govt. of. Alberta Rules of Court. 2010. Provincial Rules of Court AR124/2010 includes AR 41/2014, Edmonton: Alberta Queen’s Printer.
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. 2014. AICPA Code of Professional Conduct. Professional Rules of Conduct, American Institute of Certified Public Accountants Inc.
Appraisal Standards Board. 2008. Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. Washington: The Appraisal Foundation.Google Scholar
Ariely, Dan. “Why We Lie.” Wall Street Journal, May 26, 2012.
Bell, Robert, and Caroline Abela. n.d. “A Lawyer’s Duty to the Court.” The Advocates’ Society. Accessed March 2 2015. http://www.advocates.ca/
Canadian Bar Association. 2009. Code of Professional Conduct. Professional Standards, Ottawa: Canadian Bar Association.Google Scholar
Canadian Institute of Chartered Business Valuators. 2012. Code of Ethics. Professional Code of Conduct, Toronto: Canadian Institute of Chartered Business Valuators.Google Scholar
Canadian Institute of Chartered Business Valuators. 2014. Factum of the Intervenor, Moore v. Getahun. Toronto: CICBV.Google Scholar
Delaware Judiciary. 2010. The Delaware Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct. Professional Codes of Conduct, Delaware State Courts.Google Scholar
DiGabriele, J. A. 2008. “The Adversarial Bias of Accounting Experts in Financial Litigation: An Empirical Analysis of Compromised Objectivity in Accounting Expert Testimony.” Journal of Accounting, Ethics & Public Policy 8 (1):1–22.Google Scholar
DiGabriele, J. A. 2011. “An Observation in the Transparent Objectivity of Forensic Accounting Expert Witnesses.” Journal of Forensic & Investigative Accounting 3 (2):390–416.Google Scholar
Fay, Rebecca, and Norma, R. Feb 2015. Montague. “I’m Not Biased, Am I?” Journal of Accountancy 26–31.Google Scholar
Federal Rules of Evidence. 2013. For Use of The Committee on the Judiciary House of Representatives, Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Field, Richard H. G., and Robert J. House. 1995. Human Behaviour in Organizations. Scarborough: Prentice-Hall Canada Inc.Google Scholar
Gilcreast, Aaron. 2012. Uncovering blind spots in deal valuations. PwC Promotional Material, Price Waterhouse Coopers LLP.
Hon Coulter A. Osborne, Q. C. 2007. Civil Justice Reform Project: Summary of Findings & Recommendations. Reform Recommendations, Toronto: Attorney General of Ontario.Google Scholar
International Valuation Standards Council. 2011. Code of Ethical Principles for Professional Valuers. Professional Code of Conduct, London: International Valuation Standards Council.Google Scholar
Kalish, Donald, Richard Montague, and Gary Mar. 1980. LOGIC Techniques of Formal Reasoning, 2nd ed. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Kerr, Steven. 1995. “On the folly of rewarding A while hoping for B (20th year revision).” Academy of Management Executive 9 (1):7–14.Google Scholar
Krafka, Carol, Meghan A. Dunn, Molly, T. Johnson, Joe S. Cecil, and Dean Miletich. 2002. “Judge and Attorney Experiences, Practices, and Concerns Regarding Expert Testimony in Federal Civil Trials.” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law (American Psychological Association, Inc.) 8 (3):309–32.
Lawler, Edward E. 1993. Effective Reward Systems: Strategy, Diagnosis, Design, and Change. Los Angeles: Center for Effective Organizations – Marshall School of Business USC.Google Scholar
Lobo, Prem, and Peter J. Henein. 2011. Credibility Under Scrutiny: A Research Study of the Weight Placed on Expert Valuation and Damages Evidence in Canadian Court Judgements. Research Initiative, Toronto: Canadian Institute of Chartered Business Valuators.Google Scholar
Loomer, Suzanne. “Independence And The Financial Expert.” Family Lawyer Magazine, December 2011.
Moore v. Getahun. ONSC 237 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice, January 14, 2014).
“R.R.O. 1990, Regulation 194.” Rules of Civil Procedure (Amended to O. Reg. 259/14). Toronto: Service Ontario, Dec 11, 2014.
Sward, Ellen E. 1989. “Values, Ideology, and the Evolution of the Adversay System.” Indiana Law Journal 64 (2):301–55.Google Scholar
The Advocates’ Society. 2014. Principles Governing Communications with Testifying Experts. Codification of Professional Responsibilities, Toronto: The Advocates’ Society.Google Scholar
About the article
Published Online: 2015-07-30
Published in Print: 2017-05-24