What is the test for admitting a report late?

Turning to sub-Rule 11-7(6)(a), as above, it states that a late report “may” be admitted late if “facts have come to the knowledge” of the plaintiffs and those facts “could not, with due diligence, have been learned in time to be included in a report or supplementary report and served within the time required …”. In a previous judgment a relevant factor to be considered under this sub-Rule was whether there was any evidence of new information being conveyed to an expert that could have materially altered his opinion (Anderson v. Pieters, 2016 BCSC 889, at para. 66). That is consistent with the wording of the sub-rule that talks about the knowledge of “one or more of the parties” rather than the knowledge of the expert. The issue to be considered is the conduct of the party seeking to have the late report admitted and whether or not it could have, with due diligence, communicated the relevant information to the expert earlier.