In Pausch v. Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, the Plaintiff tendered an expert qualified to give opinion evidence as to the standard of care which is required from an MRI technologist. Counsel for the Defendant failed to raise an objection in accordance with the timelines as stipulated in Rule 11-6(10) of the British Columbia Supreme Court Civil Rules. Counsel for the Defendant argued that this rule did not apply to expert qualifications, but rather only applied to objections to the contents of the expert report, however this argument was rejected by the Court.
 In my view, no difference can be drawn between an objection to the admissibility of the report, and an objection to an expert’s qualification with regard to Rule 11-6(10). In order to be admissible, any opinion evidence must come from a properly qualified expert. Qualification is a prerequisite to admissibility.
 The wording of Rule 11-6(10) and (11) is mandatory. In my view, the phrase “objection to the admissibility of the expert’s evidence” necessarily includes objections based on inadequate qualifications of the expert. Indeed, the expert’s qualifications are required to form part of his or her report: Rule 11-6(1)(a) and (b). I find therefore, that the defendant here ought to have given notice of the objections to the expert’s qualifications.