Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 03 OCTOBER 2018

Plaintiffs Need Not Reply: Motion Striking Reply Expert Report As Violating The Rule Against Case-Splitting Granted

Cassels
Cassels
Contributor
Cassels

Cassels

Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP is a Canadian law firm focused on serving the transaction, advocacy,...

View firm profile
Explore more from Cassels

A motion to strike a plaintiff's reply expert report on a motion for leave under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act (Ontario) has been granted on the basis that the rule against case-splitting prevents a party from ...

CanadaCorporate/Commercial Law

A motion to strike a plaintiff's reply expert report on a motion for leave under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act (Ontario) has been granted on the basis that the rule against case-splitting prevents a party from offering new evidence outside of the matters already raised since it risks setting a "litigation trap."

Key Takeaways

  • Only proper reply is permitted. Reply evidence is only permitted when a responding party has raised a new matter that could not reasonably be anticipated by the plaintiff or where it is in response to an existing issue expanded upon in a manner that could not have been reasonably foreseen.
  • Whether reply evidence amounts to case-splitting must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Courts will look to the individual circumstances and exigencies of each case to determine whether it is appropriate to allow reply evidence, paying particular attention to whether each party has a fair opportunity to present its case and respond to the

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from