Can a defendant cross-examine the affiants of two affidavits from U.S. attorneys?

This point is illustrated by the ruling in Hoy v. Medtronic, Inc., 2000 CarswellBC 2430 (B.C.S.C.), where the defendant sought to cross-examine the affiants of two affidavits from U.S. attorneys who were assisting the plaintiffs in order to show that the lawyers were trying to recoup their investment loss in relation to an earlier unsuccessfully attempted class proceeding against the defendant in the U.S. The British Columbia Court commented, at paras. 9-10: 9 . . . Although the argument may be novel, it is one which deserves the opportunity to be developed. It may only be developed with evidence. That evidence is currently only within the knowledge of the plaintiff’s counsel and the U.S. counsel who are assisting them. If the defendants establish that the litigation is driven primarily for the lawyers’ own ends, it is at least arguable that such ends were not intended by the legislature in its enactment of the Class Proceedings Act . . . 10 However, at this stage, the issue is not completely formed and cannot be until counsel has the opportunity to develop it further based on the evidence they hope to acquire at the cross-examination. . . . C. Have the defendants demonstrated a need for cross-examination in this case?