Justin Bozzo

The plaintiff insured brought a motion for leave to amend its statement of claim, for a further and better affidavit of documents, and to compel answers to undertakings, over seven years after setting the action down for trial.

The defendant insurer brought a cross-motion to compel answers to undertakings.

The court denied the plaintiff leave to amend the statement of claim, finding the proposed amendments would radically change the nature of the claim and cause non-compensable prejudice to the defendant.

The court also dismissed the motions to compel answers to undertakings, finding both parties had waived or satisfied their rights.

The court ordered the defendant to produce two witness statements but found the remaining requested documents were protected by litigation privilege.

The appellant, a landlord, appealed a trial judgment that found it liable for conversion of chattels belonging to its former tenant's chattel mortgagee (the respondent).

The trial judge awarded compensatory damages based on the chattels' market value and punitive damages.

The appellant argued the compensatory damages should have been limited to the outstanding chattel mortgage balance, claiming an ownership interest in the abandoned chattels, and that punitive damages were unwarranted or excessive.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant's ownership argument was a new theory not raised at trial and was contradicted by evidence.

The court affirmed that market value was the appropriate measure of damages for conversion and upheld the punitive damages award as a rational response to the appellant's high-handed conduct.