Danielle Muise

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for leave to amend its statement of claim to add allegations of negligent misrepresentation against the principal of the defendant corporation, following news of his criminal indictment in New York.

The defendants opposed the amendments, arguing they lacked particularity and contained evidence rather than material facts.

The Master granted the motion, finding the proposed amendments set out a claim tenable at law, but ordered the plaintiff to provide additional particulars regarding the specific statements made, the special relationship, and the costs claimed.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant guarantor to collect on a commercial loan in default.

The defendant pleaded non est factum, arguing he signed a $1,000,000 personal guarantee without reading it, mistakenly believing his liability was limited to $500,000.

The court applied the three-part test for non est factum and found no genuine issue for trial, noting the defendant was careless in failing to read the document and there was no misrepresentation by the bank.

Summary judgment was granted to the plaintiff.