The applicant insurer sought leave to appeal an order that reopened a dismissed class action certification motion to allow the plaintiffs to file fresh expert evidence.
The motion judge had previously dismissed the certification motion because the plaintiffs' expert evidence was inadmissible.
The motion judge then allowed the motion to be reopened, finding that the strict test for fresh evidence from Sagaz did not apply to procedural motions under the Class Proceedings Act.
The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision and conflicting decisions regarding the application of the principle of finality to procedural orders.
