Daniel A. Schwartz

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave under Rule 48.04(1) to bring a subsequent motion to strike a pleading in the defendants' Fresh as Amended Statement of Defence.

The plaintiff argued leave was not required because the action had been struck from the trial list.

The court held that leave was still required and denied the motion, finding no significant or unexpected change in circumstances to justify the delay of over three and a half years since the impugned pleading was delivered.

The Crown brought a motion for leave to appeal an order permitting the plaintiffs to amend their statement of claim to add the Crown as a defendant in litigation concerning the implementation of competitive procurement for student transportation services.

The plaintiffs alleged the Ministry of Education improperly influenced school boards to use RFP processes under the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act and related procurement directives, disadvantaging smaller operators.

The court held that the claims, including allegations of negligent misrepresentation and breach of statutory duties, were not plainly untenable and required a full factual record at trial.

Questions regarding Crown immunity and the scope of any duty of care could not be resolved without detailed factual findings.

Leave to appeal was therefore refused.