Self-represented plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to amend their statement of claim to add a law firm as a defendant and sought to re-examine or examine a non-party witness.
The court held that the proposed claim against the law firm was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 because the plaintiffs knew or ought to have known of any potential claim years earlier and failed to bring a motion to add the firm before the limitation period expired.
The court also rejected requests to re-examine or examine a non-party because the procedural requirements under the Rules of Civil Procedure had not been met.
The motion was therefore denied, although discovery deadlines and case management timelines were extended to permit the action to proceed.
