The Appellant appealed an Order which granted the Defendant insurer leave to amend its Statement of Defence.

The Court of Appeal set out numerous cases in which the analytical framework for whether to allow amendments to pleadings pursuant to Rule 3.65(1) has been discussed. The Court emphasized that the bar for obtaining leave to amend a pleading is very low, and that there is a presumption in favour of allowing amendments. The Court added that amendments should generally be allowed where they will help narrow the real issues in dispute and allow the determination of all matters in controversy between the parties.

However, the Court also noted that Courts should pay careful attention to “very late amendments”, as amendments of this nature may cause prejudice to the non-moving party. In these cases, the non-moving party must present a compelling reason not to allow the amendment, such as significant prejudice which is not compensable in Costs, the advancement of a hopeless position, or the amendment being the product of bad faith.

The Court held that the Appellant failed to advance a compelling reason not to allow the amendment, and as such, the Appeal was dismissed.