In a leave application under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act alleging failure to disclose a material change in mining operations, the parties brought competing motions to strike expert and fact affidavits.
The respondents sought to strike the applicant’s mining expert affidavit on the basis that it improperly opined on legal issues, relied on false assumptions, and lacked independence.
The applicant sought to strike several fact and expert affidavits filed by the respondents, arguing they violated Rule 39.01(5), relied on hearsay, and attempted to shield witnesses from cross-examination.
The court held that expert evidence may rely on second-hand information and that Rule 39.01(5) does not govern admissibility of expert opinion.
The alleged conflicts and factual disputes affected weight rather than admissibility.
Both motions to strike were dismissed and no costs were awarded.
