Page: 13 [24] In October 2012, the applicants moved for leave to file affidavit evidence introducing records from the Commissioner of Elections. Leave was granted, with the hearing judge to [25] In late November 2012, additional ITO information having been brought to light by the press, the applicants moved for leave to examine three investigators for the Commissioner of Elections, Mr. Mathews, Mr. Dickson, and Mr. Thouin, or to file an affidavit containing information about their investigations. A redacted affidavit with redacted exhibits was allowed on December 6, 2012. The Chief Electoral Officer moved to have investigation evidence admitted to the record, asking for an order permitting the filing of a collection of documents brought to light through Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) requests as exhibits to an affidavit. This was also granted on December 6, 2012. [26] Finally, on December 5, 2012, the applicants asked for relief from the October 10 consent order under which they could file no more expert opinion evidence, having belatedly discovered a factual error in the respondent MPs’ reply evidence addressing Mr. Graves’ affidavits. This motion was granted subject to the production of Mr. Graves for cross-examination at the hearing, as contemplated by s 525(3) of the Act and by the Rules. [27] The hearing began as scheduled on Monday, December 10, 2012 and was concluded on Monday, December 17, 2012. In addition to the substantive merits of the applications and the procedural issue relating to timeliness, two of the motions brought by the respondents during the interlocutory proceedings remained to be determined by the Court: the maintenance and 2013 FC 525 (CanLII) decide on the weight and probative value of this evidence.