The plaintiff moved for leave to file a fresh as amended statement of claim in a proposed class proceeding alleging price-fixing of large panel LCD products.
The amendment sought to add a new named plaintiff and revise the pleading to include LCD panels as a separate defined category.
The court held the amendments were substantive, not cosmetic, because they expanded the action to a wider range of products and a larger putative class.
The proposed added plaintiff was not already within the pleaded class definition, so the tolling provision in s. 28(1) of the Class Proceedings Act did not suspend its limitation periods.
The motion was dismissed.
