The defendant sought leave to amend a statement of defence to withdraw admissions made more than two decades earlier acknowledging the validity of a personal guarantee given in connection with a corporate loan.
The proposed amendment would allow the defendant to assert defences of undue influence, lack of proper independent legal advice, and vulnerability.
The court held that the motion was governed by rule 51.05 of the Rules of Civil Procedure because the amendment effectively sought withdrawal of admissions.
The moving party failed to establish that the amendment raised a triable issue, that the original admissions were inadvertent or based on wrong instructions, or that the withdrawal would not cause prejudice.
Allowing the amendment would also constitute an abuse of process because the defendant had relied on the validity of the guarantee in prior litigation and sworn evidence.