What is the test for admissible evidence in a motion for certification?
Ontario, Canada
The following excerpt is from Johnson v Ontario, 2016 ONSC 5314 (CanLII):
The evidence in question is not admissible for the truth of its contents. However, that does not mean it is wholly inadmissible on a motion for certification: Ewert v. Canada (Attorney General), supra at paras. 39 and 40. It may be considered and assessed, along with the frailties it may contain, to determine whether the moving party has met the onus of establishing some basis in fact for the certification requirements found in s. 5(1)(b) through (e) of the CPA.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
What is the test for using the word "similar fact evidence" in a motion where the evidence is not the same fact evidence? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the basis to overturn a motion judge’s ruling that the valuation evidence tendered after cross-examinations is not admissible on the motion? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the standard of review for a motion of no confidence in a motion to amend the terms of a motion? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the test for admissible evidence in a motion to strike a claim? (Ontario, Canada)
In what circumstances will a medical report be admissible as evidence at a motion? (Ontario, Canada)
On an interim motion, is it more likely that the court will grant a motion to allow the motion to be heard before trial? (Ontario, Canada)
Is an expert report on damages admissible in evidence for the purpose of responding to a summary judgment motion? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the test for elevated costs of a motion for a motion to amend a motion? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the test for determining if a motion is a genuine issue requiring a trial based only on the evidence in the Motion Record? (Ontario, Canada)
If the evidence the Respondent submitted was to add details of conversations and was not intended or capable or capable of raising any adverse implications regarding the credibility of the complainant, is it admissible evidence? (Ontario, Canada)
