I. McKellar

The plaintiff in a solicitor's negligence action brought a motion for leave to amend her statement of claim to add allegations of litigation misconduct against the defendants' counsel.

The proposed amendments related to the removal of labels from boxes containing the plaintiff's files before they were delivered.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed amendments did not arise from the same factual matrix as the original claim and did not disclose a legally tenable cause of action for litigation misconduct.

The court also noted the motion appeared to be brought primarily for tactical reasons to bolster a separate motion to remove the defendants' counsel.

The appellants appealed an Associate Judge's decision dismissing their motion to strike the respondents' statement of claim for lack of particularity or dismiss it for delay, and granting the respondents' motions to extend time for service and compel answers to undertakings.

The underlying action involved allegations of fraudulent conveyances following a $2.3 million judgment against the corporate defendant.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error in the Associate Judge's application of the test for delay or the principles for striking pleadings.

The court declined to consider the appeal regarding the undertakings motion because the corporate defendant was not an appellant and was unrepresented.