Page: 14 champerty motion and the motion by the respondent MP in the Don Valley East riding to strike the Graves evidence. As noted above, the motion to strike the Graves evidence had been deemed dismissed. [28] On January 24, 2013 the applicants moved to be granted leave pursuant to Rule 312(a) of the Rules to adduce further affidavit evidence concerning another ITO sworn by John B. Dickson in the course of his investigations on behalf of the Office of the Commissioner of Canada Elections, which had just become public. The respondent MPs opposed the motion. None of the other parties filed a response. By Order dated February 22, 2013 the Court granted the motion on the same terms as those under which the evidence of the other ITOs was introduced and subject to the same objections on admissibility, weight, and relevance. [29] I will now turn to the legislative and jurisprudential framework governing my determination of the issues raised in these proceedings. III. The Statutory and Jurisprudential Framework A. The Canada Elections Act [30] As noted at the outset, these proceedings were brought by applications under the Canada Elections Act. The present version of this statute was enacted by Parliament in 2000 to implement the recommendations of a series of reports, including that of a Royal Commission on 2013 FC 525 (CanLII) to be continued on behalf of the other respondent MPs when the Don Valley East application was