What is the effect of Rule 10(8) of the BCRA on the admissibility of a set of estimates?

The trial judge then invited lawyers to discuss the issue outside the courtroom and attempt to come to some agreement. No agreement was reached, and the issue was again placed before the trial judge. In fact, she made no explicit ruling as to the admissibility of the evidence under Rule 10(8). The substance of the colloquy which followed between the trial judge and appellants’ counsel quickly shifted focus. Implicitly, the trial judge appears to have accepted that, in theory, such evidence was properly admissible, but she turned her attention to the matter of its adequacy. She indicated her view that it was so general and lacking in detail that it was of no real value to her analysis of the issue. She found that there was so much imprecision that she could not consider the other estimates to be reliable comparators. Counsel sought to have her consider an authority that he said was relevant to the issue, Wos v. Canadian National Railway, 2007 BCPC 166; the court indicated that there was no need to consider that. The conclusion she ultimately came to was that the evidence of the estimates could be admitted but, as she remarked to counsel, “I will give you notice now, I am giving them zero weight. There is nothing for me to draw from it except negative inferences.”