Rule Details
REGENCY INNOVATIONS INC v WEHBE, 2026 ABKB 537
Rules Discussed
- Rule 3.62 Amending pleading
- Rule 3.65 Permission of Court to amendment before or after close of pleadings
- Rule 3.67 Close of pleadings
Case Summary
The Applicant sought permission to amend his Counterclaim during Trial in an Action concerning custom cabinetry installed in his home by the Respondent, Regency Innovations Inc. (“Regency”). The Applicant had consistently denied having a contract with Regency and advanced his Counterclaim against Regency solely in negligence. Shortly before Trial, Regency abandoned its own claim, and the Parties agreed the Counterclaim was the only issue remaining between them.
After the Applicant closed his case, and before Regency called its final witness, the Applicant sought to add claims for breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, general damages, and statutory breaches under the Sale of Goods Act, RSA 2000, c S-2 and the Consumer Protection Act, RSA 2000, c C-26.3.
Justice Martin noted that, once pleadings close, Rules 3.62, 3.65 and 3.67 require the Court’s permission to amend absent consent. The threshold is low, requiring only some evidence supporting the amendment. However, permission may be refused where the amendment would cause serious prejudice not compensable in costs, is hopeless, is limitation-barred, or involves bad faith.
Justice Martin held that the proposed amendments would cause serious prejudice to Regency. For almost five years, document production, questioning, expert selection and Trial preparation had proceeded on the basis that the Applicant denied any contractual relationship with Regency. The amendments would introduce new factual inquiries concerning an alleged contract, the Applicant’s reliance, the quality and fitness of the cabinetry, mental and emotional distress, and alleged unfair practices.
Martin J. found the factual foundations for the proposed claims were known to the Applicant well before Trial. Allowing the amendments would require Regency to revisit discovery, evidence, witnesses, experts and Trial strategy. Justice Martin held that this prejudice could not be cured by costs.
The amendments were also statute-barred. Section 6 of the Limitations Act, RSA 2000, c L-12 may preserve a late claim where it relates to the conduct, transaction, or events described in the existing pleadings. The proposed claims required proof of new material facts and evidence and did not fall within Section 6.
The Application to amend the Counterclaim was dismissed.