A valve was left open at the Hideous Chemical Company plant, and a clear, colourless, odourless chemical flowed into the roadside ditch. The chemical ran down the ditch toward a pond in which a neighbouring farmer was raising trout for sale to upscale restaurants. Shortly after this incident, all the fish in the pond died.

Mr. B., an inspector for the Ministry of the Environment, investigated. Mr. B. is a technician who is trained to investigate pollution incidents, including the taking of samples for toxicity analysis. As a result of the investigation, the Ministry gave Hideous notice that:

it would suspend the company's licence to produce chemicals at the location for three months, and

it would issue an order for the company to replace the fish in the farmer's pond and compensate him for lost profits.

Hideous appealed the licence revocation and the order to replace the fish. The company argued that the amount of chemical spilled was insufficient to reach the pond and, moreover, that the chemical in question is not toxic to fish.

At the hearing, the Ministry's representative asks Mr. B. how he knows that the toxic chemical entered the water and killed the fish. Mr. B. testifies that, while he did not take any samples of the water in the pond to determine the presence of the chemical, he saw the fish rising to the surface and "gulping for air, which is a sign that they are being affected by a chemical."

Is this evidence admissible? Why or why not? You must explain your reasoning!