The defendants objected to the admission of expert reports tendered by the claimant on two grounds including the lateness of two economists’ reports.
Pursuant to Rule 11‑6(3), the economist reports should have been served 84 days before the trial. The report were 12 days late, being served 72 days before the trial commenced. This was a mistake. In allowing the reports to be admitted the judge had this to say:
 …They can only be admitted on the basis that it is in the interests of justice. The defendants concede that there is no prejudice. They rely on the caution of Justice Savage in Perry v. Vargas, 2012 BCSC 1537 at paragraph 22, that the court’s discretion in this regard is “a residual discretion” and that “[t]here must be some compelling analysis why the interests of justice require in a particular case the extraordinary step of abrogating the other requirements of the Supreme Court Civil Rules.”
 Counsel’s failure to serve the first and second reports on time was clearly misconceived. It was a mistake. The reports in question are routine in personal injury actions. They are often uncontroversial. They are certainly necessary to assist the jury in quantifying, as capital sums, the plaintiff’s claims for lost earnings. These reports were served 72 days before the trial began and there is no prejudice. In my view, the case for admission of these reports is compelling. In the circumstances, it would not be in the interests of justice to have this case decided without this evidence because of counsel’s mistake.(Kobetitch v. Belski,2018 BCSC 2214)
In exercising discretion to admit the reports into evidence the primary focus of the court was the lack of prejudice to ICBC in having these reports served late.
Read more about late admission of reports in ICBC cases.