The Plaintiff brought this Application to extensively amend their Statement of Claim. This Application arose after the Defendants successfully struck out large portions of the pleading.

The Court acknowledged its discretion under Rule 3.65(1) to allow amendments to pleadings at any time, whether or not pleadings were closed. However, the Court noted that the Rules do not guide the Court’s exercise of that discretion. Rather, it is guided by case law. The common law states that discretion should be exercised generously, and the “classic rule” is that “any pleading can be amended no matter how careless or late is the party seeking to amend.” Justice Mah cited AARC Society v Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 2019 ABCA 125, for the principle that, before granting an amendment Application, the Court should consider two separate interests that are equally weighted: the litigation interests of the opposing party and the public interest in having the matter conclude in a timely manner with as little expenditure of resources as possible.

The Court also acknowledged that an amendment can be denied if the opposing party proves that the amendment falls within one of the exceptions, including where the amendment: (1) would cause serious prejudice to the opposing party that cannot be remedied by costs, (2) is hopeless, (3) adds a new party or cause of action after the limitation period has expired, or (4) involves bad faith. Mah J. stated that the governing authority for the Application is Rule 3.65(1) through (3) and interpreted that the Court’s authority was restricted to saying yes or no to the proposed amendments and would not extend to striking out parts of the Statement of Claim that are original. In response to the Defendant’s allegation that some of the proposed amendments are an attempt to circumvent previous rulings in the Action, the Court affirmed that the amendment Application cannot be used to “breathe life into causes of action that were pronounced legally dead” in his previous decision.

The Court conducted an amendment-by-amendment analysis, allowing amendments that clarified the issues and were supported by evidence, while denying amendments that were vague, irrelevant, or constituted new causes of action outside the limitations period. Justice Mah directed that the Plaintiff had 2 weeks following the date of the Decision to amend and file the Amended Statement of Claim.