Who says the Court of Appeal doesn't -- at least occasionally -- dig deep, immerse itself in the facts, and issue detailed and very specific rulings based upon a heafty analysis of the facts?
Sure, it doesn't happen all the time. But it happens here. I very much enjoyed Justice Gomes's analytical evaluation of the evidence here, which seems entirely correct to me. Some of the expert declaration was admissible, and some of it wasn't. I'm persuaded.
Maybe there's a little bit too much introductory stuff at the outset of the opinion; e.g., lengthy discussions of the most basic evidentiary and procedural principles. But that's what naturally happens (albeit sadly) when opinions are derived directly from bench memoranda.
Still, on the merits, some excellent heavy lifting. Great job.
