A review of Charles Smith's findings and a second autopsy confirmed the injuries were consistent with dog bites, and Reynolds was eventually freed - but not before losing custody of another daughter and going into debt to defend herself on a murder charge.

Reynolds, 37, is fighting for the right to sue Smith, and her case is expected to have ramifications for anyone wrongly accused or convicted of a crime.

Reynolds's case, set to be heard by the Ontario Court of Appeal early next year, will determine whether victims of miscarriages of justice can use the civil court system to hold pathologists and other scientific experts accountable for negligence in criminal investigations.

If so, the case could open up a new avenue of compensation for the wrongly convicted and establish a tool for changing behaviour that contributes to miscarriages of justice, including tunnel vision and bad science.

Negligent investigations were found to have played a key role in several wrongful convictions in Canada.

"To bar civil claims against pathologists and other investigative workers performing their duties negligently, recklessly or otherwise in bad faith is tantamount to denying wrongly accused and/or convicted persons access to this important means of compensation," Paul Copeland, of the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted, said in an affidavit filed with the Appeal Court. The association is seeking to intervene in Reynolds's case.

The question of whether police and other crime scene experts can be held accountable for mistakes isn't exclusive to Canada. Courts in Britain and the United States have wrestled with the issue.

Eighteen years ago, police chasing Britain's Yorkshire Ripper were sued for negligence by the mother of one of 13 women slain by serial killer Peter Sutcliffe. Britain's House of Lords rejected the idea that police could be sued if investigations fell below expected standards.

Canadian courts have confirmed in Ontario and Quebec that police can be sued for negligent investigations. The Supreme Court is currently considering whether that right should be abolished.

At issue in Reynolds's case is whether the principle of witness immunity can be used to insulate pathologists and other scientific experts from lawsuits for mistakes made during the investigative phase of a case.

The theory behind immunity is witnesses should be able to testify in court without fear of consequences.