The court considered a motion to strike or exclude expert reports filed by the plaintiffs in a proposed class action concerning alleged regulatory failures in the oversight of syndicated mortgage investments.
The court found that the expert evidence was relevant to the leave motion but ultimately struck the affidavit of one expert and portions of another for lack of impartiality and proper qualifications.
The decision clarifies the threshold requirements for admissibility of expert evidence, including relevance, qualifications, and impartiality, in the context of motions for leave under the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019.
