After receiving the Defendants’ records production the Plaintiff was able to determine the identity of four of the John Does included in the Statement of Claim. The Plaintiff then brought an Application to amend the Pleadings to add the parties to the Action. The Court applied Rules 3.74(2) and 3.74(3) in determining whether or not to grant the Application. In doing so, the Court relied on the recent decisions in Manson Insulation Products Ltd v Crossroads C&I Distributors, 2011 ABQB 51 and 869120 Alberta Ltd v B&G Energy Ltd, 2011 ABQB 209. The Court stated that in order to be satisfied that the Order should be made, the Court would want to see a link between the new Defendants and the facts and incidents originally alleged against the extant Defendants. It noted that “[t]he requirement in Rule 3.74(2)(b) that the Court must be ‘satisfied the order should be made’ means justice must require the addition of the parties”.

Furthermore, the new Defendants should be added as soon as is reasonable in the circumstances, and there should be no prejudice that would result that could not be remedied by a costs award, an adjournment or the imposition of terms. The Court granted the Plaintiff’s Application stating that the Plaintiff had provided at least “some evidence” to convince the Court to add the parties, and that no prejudice had been claimed by the Defendants.