The appellants appealed an order striking their statement of claim against the respondent municipality.
The appellants argued the motion judge should have considered their motion to amend the statement of claim before striking it.
The Court of Appeal agreed but found the motion to amend would have failed due to inordinate, unexplained delay and prejudice to the respondent, including the expiry of limitation periods.
The unamended statement of claim disclosed no cause of action against the respondent.
The appeal was dismissed.
