[5] As a preliminary matter, it is noteworthy that the complexities of the instant motion flow directly from PIM’s decision to seek leave to file fresh evidence on the morning of the hearing of its own appeal. I express no opinion on whether the Federal Court erred in allowing the appellant’s motion on such very late notice. It is clear, however, that this Court has consistently and repeatedly emphasized the importance of parties advancing their best case at the earliest opportunity (Rosenstein v. Atlantic Engraving Ltd., 2002 FCA 503, at para. 9). The Practice Directives of the Federal Court speak to the same effect. The timely disclosure of evidence and identification of contentious issues in advance of a hearing ensures that issues are fully argued, that no party is prejudiced and enhances the Court’s ability to manage the trial or hearing process.
The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.
