The Applicant sought leave to amend her Statement of Claim. The Court noted that amendments to pleadings are governed by Rules 3.62, 3.68 and 3.56 of the Rules, which together require the Court’s leave to amend pleadings after pleadings have closed.

In reviewing relevant case law, Justice Harris highlighted the established principle that any pleading can be amended at any time, regardless of how negligent the party seeking the amendment may have been in drafting their pleadings. While the criteria for amending pleadings are generally favorable, indicating a strong inclination to permit such changes, it does not imply that permission to amend is guaranteed. Over time, specific situations have emerged where proposed amendments should not be permitted. The Respondent argued that certain substantive amendments sought by the Applicant were of the type that should not be allowed.

The Respondent argued that these proposed changes were unlikely to succeed at trial and fundamentally altered the nature of the case at a late stage. The Respondent argued this would cause irreparable prejudice that could not be remedied through costs.

Justice Harris reviewed the proposed amendments alongside the evidentiary record and granted leave only for those amendments that were backed by evidence and were not deemed futile. Harris J. then evaluated the amendments that the Respondent claimed would cause prejudice. The Court acknowledged precedent which directed that prejudice could be found where amendments significantly changed the legal case at a late stage of litigation. Justice Harris noted that a considerable amount of time had elapsed since the Statement of Claim was issued (9 years) and even longer since the events that underlie the claim (11 years). The distinction between this case and others where amendments were denied lies in the timing relative to Trial and the progress made in the litigation. This case was not nearing Trial, as many essential steps remained unfinished despite the significant time that had passed. The Court determined that there was no presumption of prejudice, and the Respondent retained the opportunity to submit an Amended Statement of Defense and conduct Questioning. Ultimately, the Court found that the Respondent did not demonstrate prejudice to a level that could not be remedied through costs, and allowed the amendments.