On a pre-injunction motion, the respondent to the application sought to strike portions of two affidavits filed in support of a Charter challenge to federal election legislation.
The court reviewed the opinion evidence rule and emphasized caution in excising affidavit evidence where the injunction judge, with the full record, was better positioned to assess admissibility and relevance.
The court declined to strike the affidavit evidence of one deponent and most of the other deponent’s affidavit, despite concerns that some passages resembled expert opinion or were of doubtful relevance.
One paragraph criticizing the legislative process was struck as clearly irrelevant.
