The plaintiff sought leave to further amend his statement of claim to include allegations of conspiracy against the police and Crown attorneys regarding his arrests during a native protest.
The defendant opposed the amendments, arguing they were statute-barred.
The court found that while the proposed amendments met the test for particularity, they attempted to resurrect previously struck allegations from December 2006 and were therefore statute-barred.
The court struck the conspiracy paragraphs without leave to amend, but allowed other unchallenged amendments.
