The Plaintiffs applied to amend their pleadings on the first day of a two-week Trial. The Defendants consented to adjourn the Trial subject to thrown-away Costs. The Defendants also consented to all but one of the proposed amendments, which was an additional claim for fraudulent misrepresentation.

Hollins J. noted that pursuant to Rule 3.62(1)(b), a party may amend their pleadings after the close of pleadings with the permission of the Court. The Court’s discretion to allow amendments is governed by common law, and any pleading may be amended no matter how careless or late. There are four major exceptions to this general principle: i) the amendment would cause serious prejudice to the opposing party not compensable in costs; ii) the amendment requested is hopeless; iii) the amendment seeks to add a new party or cause of action after expiry of a limitation period not permitted by statute; and iv) there is an element of bad faith.

Justice Hollins held that pursuant to Rule 13.6, in order to make allegations of fraud in a pleading, the party must include particulars to enable the Defendant to know precisely the case he must meet. Here, the alleged fraudulent misrepresentations were sufficiently described, and none of the exceptions applied. As such, Justice Hollins granted the Application to amend the pleadings.