Motion to strike responding expert reports dismissed.
The Crown moved to strike two expert reports filed by the plaintiff, arguing they were not properly responsive to the Crown's primary expert report concerning railway subsidies.
The Federal Court dismissed the motion, finding that the reports were proper responding evidence that provided necessary historical and economic context to the subsidy issues raised in the Crown's estoppel defence.
The Court held that the plaintiff was not required to anticipate the defence and file these reports as primary evidence.
