Rule Details
DUPUIS v ZIBELL
Rules Discussed
- Rule 3.62 Amending pleading
- Rule 3.65 Permission of Court to amendment before or after close of pleadings
Case Summary
The Defendant sought to appeal a Chambers Justice’s decision allowing the Plaintiff to amend their Statement of Claim to add the enforcement of a contract entered into by the parties under the then Matrimonial Property Act, RSA 2000, c M-8 (now Family Property Act, RSA 2000, c F-4.7) (the “Act”).
The issues on Appeal were whether the amendment amounted to a new cause of action and, if so, whether the amendment was barred by operation of a limitation period.
After considering Rules 3.62(1) and 3.65(1) and applying relevant caselaw, the Court upheld the prior decision. The Court found that the Chambers Justice committed no error in concluding that the amendment did not raise a new cause of action but rather particularized an existing claim and sought an additional remedy under the Act. The Court noted that the Chambers Justice’ ruling was consistent with the Court of Appeal’s decision in Arnston v Arnston, 2024 ABCA 226, which provided that a court retains jurisdiction to enforce agreements that settle litigation.
The Court dismissed the Appeal.