The plaintiffs sought leave to amend their Statement of Claim in a dental malpractice action, proposing new particulars of alleged negligence related to the defendant's surgical procedures and post-operative care.
The defendant argued these amendments constituted new causes of action outside the limitation period.
Applying a factually-oriented approach to "cause of action" under Rule 26.01, the court found that most proposed amendments arose from the same factual matrix as the original claim and did not constitute new causes of action.
Leave was granted for these amendments, as no non-compensable prejudice was found.
However, an amendment that pleaded evidence, contrary to Rule 25.06(1), was denied.
