The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend its statement of claim to clarify relief, plead reliance on the Copyright Act, and advance an alternative claim of equitable ownership of copyright.
The defendants opposed the amendments, arguing that the litigation timetable had already been established and that equitable ownership of copyright was not recognized in Canadian law.
The court applied Rule 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and held that amendments should be permitted absent non-compensable prejudice.
Given that discoveries had not yet occurred and the amendments arose from the same factual matrix as the original breach of contract claim, the court found no prejudice.
The court further held that the novel equitable ownership argument was not clearly incapable of success and therefore should not be struck at the pleading stage.
