5 total
Leave to amend statement of claim granted as amendments merely clarified original pleadings without causing prejudice.
The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend its statement of claim in a construction lien action.
The defendant opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion to strike the plaintiff's defence to the counterclaim, arguing the amendments raised new causes of action after the expiry of the limitation period.
The court granted the plaintiff's motion, finding the proposed amendments merely expanded and clarified the original pleadings regarding a joint venture and oral agreements, rather than creating new causes of action.
The court found no prejudice to the defendant, as discoveries had not yet occurred, and dismissed the defendant's cross-motion.
Court allowed trial record filing on existing pleadings before lien deadline.
In a construction lien proceeding, the moving party sought to set the action down for trial on the existing pleadings before expiry of the statutory deadline under section 37.
The responding party objected, arguing the proposal would improperly extend time and delay the action.
The court distinguished prior authority and found the procedural history showed active steps had been taken to advance the matter within time.
The court held the objection sought an unwarranted tactical advantage and accepted the proposed without-prejudice filing approach pending rulings on the motion and cross-motion.
Negligence appeal dismissed; trial judge's finding that plaintiff failed to prove factual causation upheld.
The appellant appealed the trial judge's dismissal of her negligence claim.
The trial judge found that the appellant failed to prove factual causation, concluding that the probable cause of the accident was an unsafe activity undertaken by the appellant on a stool, rather than the stool's wobbly steps.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's finding on causation was open to her on the evidence and did not constitute a palpable and overriding error.
Beneficial ownership of shares can exist without an express finding of trust or fraud.
The appellants appealed a trial judge's finding that the deceased's surviving husband was the beneficial owner of certain corporate shares, despite the deceased's estate being the legal owner.
The appellants argued this required a finding of fraud or an express trust.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that under the Business Corporations Act, beneficial ownership is not limited to ownership through a formal trustee and can exist without fraud.
The court found the deceased was implicitly a bare trustee for her husband, who had absolute control of the shares.
The court also rejected arguments that the action was barred by the Trustee Act limitation period, as no personal wrong was alleged against the deceased.
Appeal dismissed as the court agreed with the motion judge's analysis and conclusions.
The appellant appealed the order of the motion judge.
The Court of Appeal agreed with the analysis and conclusions of the motion judge and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondents.
