A. Sinha

The plaintiffs brought a motion for the production of a Cooperation and Common Interest Agreement between the defendants.

The plaintiffs sought the agreement to support their argument that the defendants mounted a joint defence, which would affect the apportionment of costs following summary judgment motions.

After reviewing the agreement in camera, the court dismissed the motion, finding that the document was protected by privilege.

The plaintiffs, standardbred horse breeders, sued Ontario and the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation (OLG) for breach of contract, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation following the cancellation of the Slots at Racetrack Program (SARP).

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action, and the plaintiffs cross-moved for summary judgment on liability.

The court held that the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act (CLPA) retroactively extinguished the plaintiffs' tort claims because the cancellation of SARP was a policy decision made in good faith.

However, the court found that the 1998 Letter of Intent establishing SARP was a binding contract.

Applying the principled exception to the doctrine of privity, the court held that the plaintiffs had standing to enforce the contract.

The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs against Ontario for breach of contract, finding that Ontario breached an implied term to provide reasonable notice of termination.

The action against OLG was dismissed.

The plaintiff moved to amend its Statement of Claim shortly before trial in a commercial dispute arising from the termination of a racetrack slots program agreement.

The defendant opposed the amendment on grounds including alleged limitation issues, withdrawal of a prior admission, expansion beyond the agreed issues list, and the inclusion of argumentative pleading.

The court reviewed the principles governing amendments under Rule 26 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and concluded that amendments should generally be granted unless non-compensable prejudice is demonstrated.

Finding no such prejudice, the court allowed the amendments but imposed conditions restricting further discovery and requiring the amendments to be filed in black‑line format.

The court also rejected arguments that the amendments improperly altered the character of the action or were barred by limitation on the record before it.