This case involved a dispute between former adult interdependent partners over property division and support following the breakdown of their long-term relationship. The Plaintiff advanced a claim for unjust enrichment, seeking a monetary equalization payment and, in the alternative, trust remedies or a quantum meruit award. She also claimed retroactive and ongoing partner support.

Among several contested property issues was the valuation of a company, Canon Lake Trucking Ltd. (“Canon”), which had been incorporated by the Defendant during the relationship. The Plaintiff had served a Notice to Admit on the Defendant concerning the value of Canon and other assets (the “Notice”). The Defendant failed to respond to the Notice, and it was admitted into evidence. The Notice stated that Canon should be valued at $197,000.

At Trial, the Plaintiff applied under Rule 6.37(6)(a) for permission to amend the Notice to Admit to assign a higher value to Canon (between $517,303 and $544,000), relying on post-separation asset sales, corporate bank balances, and financial statements. She argued that newly disclosed evidence warranted a revised valuation.

Justice Bercov reviewed the standard under Rule 6.37(6)(a), which permits amendment or withdrawal of admissions only with leave of the Court or consent of the parties. The Court emphasized that while Rule 6.37 provides a mechanism to streamline litigation by allowing certain facts to be admitted without formal proof, that efficiency must be balanced against the pursuit of truth.

Relying on Dwyer v Fox, 1996 ABCA 95, Bercov J. reiterated that an admission may be withdrawn where the truth of a fact can only be properly determined through evidence at Trial. However, in this case, the Court found that all the relevant financial information relied upon by the Plaintiff had been available at the time she prepared the Notice. Accordingly, the request to amend the Notice was denied, and Canon’s value was fixed at $197,000 as originally stated.