Following success at Trial, the Plaintiff sought leave to amend its Statement of Claim to include a prayer for prejudgment interest. The Court first considered whether an award of prejudgment interest could be granted where that remedy had not been pleaded. In part, the Plaintiff argued the Court’s broad authority set out in Rule 1.3 to grant a remedy “whether or not it is claimed or sought”. The Defendant argued that Rule 13.6(2)(c)(iii) specifically requires that the particulars of interest be pleaded. The Court held that prejudgment interest must be pleaded where sought.

Turning to the Plaintiff’s request for leave to amend, the Defendant argued that the proposed amendment was hopeless. The Court described a hopeless amendment as one that would have been struck if originally pleaded. Justice Friesen considered the conditions for striking a pleading under Rule 3.68, finding that the addition of a prayer for prejudgment interest did not meet those conditions. The Court granted leave to amend the Statement of Claim and ordered prejudgment interest as claimed in the amendment.