The defendants brought a motion to strike three affidavits filed by the plaintiff in response to the defendants' summary judgment motion based on a limitation period defence.
The defendants argued the affidavits contained inadmissible expert evidence and unsupported hearsay.
The court held that it was appropriate to review the expert evidence issue in advance of the main motion.
The court found that the attached engineering reports were not expert reports for the purpose of the discoverability issue, but the deponents' opinions on whether unit owners could have discovered the deficiencies without engineering assistance were litigation expert opinions.
As these opinions did not comply with Rule 53.03(2.1), the specific paragraphs containing them were struck.
The court deferred the issue of unsupported hearsay to the judge hearing the main summary judgment motion.
