Page: 12 In exchange, counsel for the respondent MPs agreed not to cross-examine affiants representing [22] The respondent MPs moved in August 2012 to have an increased security for costs, totalling $260,409.00, paid into court by the applicants. This was denied by Prothonotary Aronovitch on the basis that the "respondent MPs have failed to raise grounds or bring to bear evidence that would justify any further payment of security for costs, let alone in the amount requested." (Bielli v Canada (Attorney General), 2012 FC 1172 at para 5). Finding that the seven motions (one in each application) had unnecessarily delayed and encumbered the proceedings, she ordered that the costs of the motions be paid by the respondent MPs in any event of the cause. [23] Another series of preliminary motions concerned the expert opinion evidence filed by the parties. The respondent MPs moved in August 2012 for leave to file a sur-reply affidavit by their expert, Dr. Ruth Corbin. In September, the applicants moved for leave to file their own expert reply and the respondent MPs moved to strike the evidence of the applicants’ expert, Mr. Frank Graves, invoking an alleged lack of independence and impartiality. On October 10, 2012, the Court issued a consent order allowing both parties to file reply and sur-reply affidavits, without prejudice to their rights to make representations on the weight and probative value of the evidence during the hearing, but with agreement that neither the applicants nor the respondent MPs would seek to serve and or file any additional affidavits from experts. 2013 FC 525 (CanLII) the Council with respect to the motion to dismiss for maintenance and champerty.