The moving plaintiff sought to set aside a registrar's dismissal for delay and obtain leave to file a substantially expanded amended statement of claim in contamination litigation.
Applying a contextual approach under rule 37.14 and related jurisprudence, the court found the delay had adequate explanation in light of counsel changes, document-production disputes, and evolving contamination evidence.
The court also held the proposed amendments did not plead a new cause of action, and alternatively found limitation issues unsuitable for determination on a pleadings motion.
The dismissal order was set aside, leave to amend was granted subject to limitation defences, costs were fixed against one responding party, and costs as between the plaintiff and the railway were reserved to the trial judge.
