Tim Hudek

The defendant brokerage firm brought a motion to strike a supplementary affidavit filed by one of the plaintiffs in response to a pending summary judgment motion.

The defendant argued the affidavit contained impermissible expert opinion evidence, hearsay, and irrelevant material, and was not compliant with Rule 53 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court held that the affidavit was not expert evidence but rather the plaintiff’s explanation of how he calculated alleged investment losses based on publicly available information and personal assumptions.

The court found the evidence could potentially affect the outcome of the proceeding and that questions regarding admissibility and weight were better left to the judge hearing the summary judgment motion.

The motion to strike was dismissed.

The plaintiff corporation brought a motion to amend its statement of claim against the defendant bank to allege that a specific individual was not an authorized signing officer when she conducted fraudulent transactions.

The defendant opposed the motion, arguing it amounted to the withdrawal of an admission, asserted a new cause of action after the limitation period expired, and constituted an abuse of process.

The Master granted the motion, finding the original pleading was not an admission but a background fact, there was a triable issue regarding the discoverability of the new cause of action, and there was no abuse of process.